low self control theory essay

Self-Control Theory: Examples, Weaknesses & View of Crime

The self-control theory of crime proposes that criminal behavior is influenced by an individual’s self-control.

According to the theory, people are not inherently criminally-minded, and that how they were parented before the age of ten has a critical effect on their ability to control how they conduct themselves in society.

It suggests that a person’s level of self-control is directly correlated to whether or not they will be prone to criminality.

Self-Control Theory of Crime Definition

The self-control theory dictates that:

“…people with low self-control remain rational and hedonistic , but are myopic; their criminal and analogous actions reflect nothing more than a lack of foresight or consideration of delayed consequences.” (Burt, 2020, p. 45)

Popularized by Social Criminologist Travis Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson, self-control theory states that people with higher self-control typically consider the full consequences of their actions.

These people therefore recognize that committing a crime comes with extreme risk and are deterred from committing the crime because they understand the consequences.

On the other hand:

“…people with low self-control are people inclined to follow momentary impulse without consideration of the long-term costs of such behavior.” (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990, p.191)

Self-control is the key variable for individuals that decides whether or not they will commit a crime. Gottfredson & Hirschi (1990) conclude that:

“…people who lack self-control will tend to be impulsive , insensitive, physical (as opposed to mental), risk-taking, shortsighted, and nonverbal, and they will tend therefore to engage in criminal and analogous acts.” (p. 90)

Self-Control Theory Strengths and Weaknesses

A feminist critique of self-control theory.

A specific criticism of self-control theory regards gender: “a false gender-neutrality when gender specificity is appropriate, and implicitly blames woman-dominated child-care for contemporary criminal behavior” (Miller & Burack, 1993, p.115).

Miller & Burack (1993) emphasize that:

“Often, general social theories are developed in the absence of a consideration of differences among individuals. The elimination of social, psycho- logical, political, economic, and historical difference serves to reinforce dominant cultural values and ideological beliefs, erasing the divergent experiences of women and members of minority groups . (p. 116)

They attempt to dismantle the self-control theory by showing that the role of gender in criminality is often ignored, or not properly address in many social theories.

By addressing the roles (perceived roles) of men and women in society through a feminist analysis, Miller & Burack (1993) point out that both Gottfredson and Hirschi “manipulated or ignored” gender roles in the formulation of their theory.

They accuse Gottfredson and Hirschi of intentional “linguistic gender neutrality” , and “ scrupulous avoidance of gender specific terms in discussing, for example, parenting and victimization” (pp. 117-118).

Self-Control Examples

• During early childhood, parents can alter discipline methods and education strategies to enhance self-control in their child.
• Parents or guardians teach the child better patterns of eating so that they are physically and mentally healthier.
• Being taught to resist the urge to steal something if you can’t afford to buy it, even if you really want it.
• Learning to resist the urge for instant gratification , to have patience, and wait.
• Being taught what is right and wrong in order to act accordingly in society.
• Learning not to do something in excess, whether it be eating too much chocolate cake, watching television, etc.
• Receiving lessons on basic financial responsibility, learning to be more conscious of the money that you spend and where you spend it.
• The ability to cut down on social media uses due to the expansive cons of social media , such as its addictiveness.
• Children learning self-esteem from their parent or guardian.
• Children learning interpersonal communication skills and how to be respectful to others.

Self-Control in Academic Research

1. raising children with self-control.

Case Study: During early childhood , parents can alter discipline methods education strategies to enhance self-control in their child.

While “spanking” or hitting a child as a means of discipline is certainly not an uncommon method for different parents from different cultures in the world, it could have negative ramifications for when a child gets older.

Some researchers liken it to trauma, while other social scientists have concluded that it does not adequately reinforce good behavior; in fact, more often than not, the opposite is a probable outcome.

As Wiggers & Paas (2022) explain,

Children observe and imitate the behaviors of those around them, especially those they consider to be role models.” (p. 2)

For adults and small children, delaying gratification for something you want can be a major psychological challenge.

For example, if given the choice to eat something delicious now, or wait until tomorrow, a majority of people would succumb to temptation and probably choose to eat as soon as possible.

This could also be the case for financial profits, a new item a person wants to purchase with a credit card, or any other urge that can be immediately satisfied in that specific moment.

2. The Marshmallow Project

Case Study: Mischel & Grusec (1967) conducted a study in Trinidad with 206 children. They measured how delay of gratification and how that could relate to time perception, achievement, and social responsibility .

They found that children had a preference for immediate aversive stimulation ;  similar results were also found with in future studies with students, where participants were offered smaller rewards immediately, versus delayed and larger rewards.

Watts et al. (2018) explains that:

“…self-control—typically understood to be an umbrella construct that includes gratification delay but also impulsivity, conscientiousness, self-regulation, and executive function—averaged across early and middle childhood, predicted outcomes across a host of adult domains” (para. 2)

Mischel (2014) 1972 benchmark Stanford “marshmallow study” is a perfect example to explain this phenomenon. In this study, delayed gratification experiments were tested with children.

It involved a series of trials that questioned whether a child would eat a marsh mellow now, or wait for a period of time to receive more marshmallows as a reward their patience.

3. Social Media Addiction and Self-Control

Case Study: Parents being aware of internet addiction, and children looking at social media or the phone for many hours each day.

In today’s day and age, internet addiction has been a topic of concern for many parents. Some parents monitor their children’s screen time, make sure they are not playing too many video games, and putting time and content restrictions on the devices that they use.

Li et al. (2021) characterizes internet addiction as an:

“…impulse-control disorder that does not involve an intoxicant, which has been characterized by poorly-controlled preoccupations, urges, or behaviors regarding Internet access that lead to impairment or distress.” (para. 1)

Using different variables in their study Li et al. (2021) breaks down the variables that may affect addiction; gender, culture, age, and year. His results concluded that:

“…self-control was negatively linked to Internet addiction. Specifically, there was a positive link between impulsivity and Internet addiction, while there was a negative link between restraint and Internet addiction.” (para 17-18)

He suggests that early preventative measures can be taken (to moderate the frequency that a child accesses the internet) to help decrease the like-hood of addiction in the future.

They also pose questions to what role a parent can play in guiding their children to have more self-control in their use of technology.

Blomberg, T. G., Brancale, J. M., Beaver, K. M., & Bales, W. D. (Eds.). (2016).  Advancing criminology and criminal justice policy  (pp. 7-9). New York: Routledge.

Burt C. H. (2020). Self-Control and Crime: Beyond Gottfredson and Hirschi’s Theory. Annual review of criminology, 3 (1), 43–73. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011419-041344

Burt, C. (2020). Self-Control and crime: Beyond Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory. Annu Rev Criminol, 3 (1), 43–73. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011419-041344

Burt, C. H., Simons, R. L., & Simons, L. G. (2006). A longitudinal test of the effects of parenting and the stability of self‐control: negative evidence for the general theory of crime.  Criminology ,  44 (2), 353-396.

Gottfredson MR, & Hirschi T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanf. Univ. Press

Li, S., Ren, P., Chiu, M. M., Wang, C., & Lei, H. (2021). The Relationship Between Self-Control and Internet Addiction Among Students: A Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.735755  

Longshore, D., Rand, S. T., & Stein, J. A. (1996). Self‐control in a criminal sample: An examination of construct validity .  Criminology ,  34 (2), 209-228.

Miller, S. L., & Burack, C. (1993). A Critique of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime. Women & Criminal Justice, 4 (2), 115-134. https://doi.org/10.1300/j012v04n02_07

Mischel W. (2014). The marshmallow test: Why self-control is the engine of success. New York, NY: Little, Brown.

Mischel, W., & Grusec, J. (1967). Waiting for rewards and punishments: Effects of time and probability on choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5 (1), 24–31

Monahan, K. C., Steinberg, L., Cauffman, E., & Mulvey, E. P. (2009). Trajectories of antisocial behavior and psychosocial maturity from adolescence to young adulthood.  Developmental psychology ,  45 (6), 1654.

Nagin, D. S., & Pogarsky, G. (2001). Integrating celerity, impulsivity, and extralegal sanction threats into a model of general deterrence: Theory and evidence.  Criminology ,  39 (4), 865-892.

Piquero, A. R., Jennings, W. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2010). On the malleability of self‐control: Theoretical and policy implications regarding a general theory of crime.  Justice Quarterly ,  27 (6), 803-834.

Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta‐analysis.  Criminology ,  38 (3), 931-964.

Tittle, C. R., Ward, D. A., & Grasmick, H. G. (2003). Self-control and crime/deviance: Cognitive vs. behavioral measures.  Journal of Quantitative Criminology ,  19 , 333-365.

Watts, T. W., Duncan, G. J., & Quan, H. (2018). Revisiting the Marshmallow Test: A Conceptual Replication Investigating Links Between Early Delay of Gratification and Later Outcomes. Psychological Science, 29 (7), 1159– 1177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618761661

Wiggers, M., & Paas, F. (2022). Harsh Physical Discipline and Externalizing Behaviors in Children: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19 (21), 14385. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114385

Gregory Paul C. (MA)

Gregory Paul C. is a licensed social studies educator, and has been teaching the social sciences in some capacity for 13 years. He currently works at university in an international liberal arts department teaching cross-cultural studies in the Chuugoku Region of Japan. Additionally, he manages semester study abroad programs for Japanese students, and prepares them for the challenges they may face living in various countries short term.

• Gregory Paul C. (MA) #molongui-disabled-link Upper Middle-Class Lifestyles: 10 Defining Features
• Gregory Paul C. (MA) #molongui-disabled-link Arousal Theory of Motivation: Definition & Examples
• Gregory Paul C. (MA) #molongui-disabled-link Theory of Mind: Examples and Definition
• Gregory Paul C. (MA) #molongui-disabled-link 10 Strain Theory Examples (Plus Criticisms of Merton)

Chris Drew (PhD)

This article was peer-reviewed and edited by Chris Drew (PhD). The review process on Helpful Professor involves having a PhD level expert fact check, edit, and contribute to articles. Reviewers ensure all content reflects expert academic consensus and is backed up with reference to academic studies. Dr. Drew has published over 20 academic articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education and holds a PhD in Education from ACU.

• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 25 Positive Punishment Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 25 Dissociation Examples (Psychology)
• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 15 Zone of Proximal Development Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link Perception Checking: 15 Examples and Definition

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Self-Control Theory Of Crime 

Charlotte Ruhl

Research Assistant & Psychology Graduate

BA (Hons) Psychology, Harvard University

Charlotte Ruhl, a psychology graduate from Harvard College, boasts over six years of research experience in clinical and social psychology. During her tenure at Harvard, she contributed to the Decision Science Lab, administering numerous studies in behavioral economics and social psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

What is Gottfredson and Hirschi Self-Control Theory?

Self-control theory of crime proposes that individuals with low self-control are more prone to commit crimes, as they are less capable of restraining themselves from impulses and immediate gratifications, despite potential negative consequences.

The self-control theory of Crime is a criminological theory that helps to explain why certain individuals commit crimes (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990).

The theory holds that individuals who did not receive effective parenting before age 10 are more likely to lack self-control , or the ability to give up acts that grant immediate pleasure (Gottfredson, 2017), than those who had good parenting.

Good parenting occurs when parents care for their children, monitor their behavior, and both recognize and punish deviance when it occurs. As a result, those who lack this form of parenting are more likely to commit a crime. 

In other words, the self-control theory of crime holds that a lack of self-control is the main driver of criminal behavior.

Centering this theory in the nature vs. nurture debate (i.e., the extent to which genes or the environment play a role in behavior), the self-control theory of crime advocates for the role of the environment (in this case, how a child is parented) in determining who will engage in criminal behavior. 

This theory was first developed by criminologists Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi in 1990.

The pair observed that there was a strong correlation between age and criminal behavior, whereby the vast majority of individuals commit their first crime by the age of 20, and most individuals who commit crimes, in general, are under the age of 30 (1983).

This gave Gottfredson and Hirschi reason to believe that something unique about child development motivated certain individuals to have a high propensity for violence and crime.

The unique factor, the researchers concluded, was a lack of self-control, developed as a result of insufficient parenting.

An absence of self-control often explains criminal acts, and this ability improves with age as an individual develops and becomes socialized. Thus, limited self-control helps account for why the majority of crimes are committed by younger people. 

The Self-Control Theory of Crime is a generalized theory . Therefore it is meant to apply to all forms of behavior where an individual cannot resist the temptation of immediate gratification and thus impulsively engage in criminal activity that requires little to no long-term planning, such as drunk driving, fraud, petty and grand theft, assault, and property and personal crimes.

This theory is not the first of its kind. Rather, it stems from a body of literature beginning in the 1950s that classified a broader Social Control Theory as the way in which socialization and social learning build self-control and reduce the tendency to engage in antisocial behavior (Nye, 1958).

From there, Travis Hirschi developed his bonding theory which stated that the strength of a person’s social bonds determines the likelihood that they will commit a crime (Hirschi, 1969), and from there, the Self-Control Theory of Crime was born, focusing specifically on the role of parenting in hindering the development of self-control and increasing the likelihood of petty crimes. 

The theory operates on a couple of assumptions regarding individuals who commit crimes. It assumes that criminal offenders are predisposed to commit crimes by external factors (in this case, bad parenting).

It also assumes that, if all else is equal, crime-prone people have a much higher probability of violating the law than non-crime-prone people. 

The Self Control Theory of Crime helps us understand one important factor in why individuals commit crimes: insufficient parenting, which leads to a lack of self-control. But what does an individual with low self-control look like?

What are the characteristics of someone with low self-control? 

As we know, individuals who grow up with parents who don’t properly care for and monitor their behavior have low self-control.

These individuals become impulsive, attracted to simple rather than complex tasks, self-centered, risk-seeking, attracted to physical rather than mental activities, and hot-tempered, among other characteristics (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990).

This is not to say that all individuals with low self-control possess all of these traits or even that individuals with low self-control exhibit these traits in identical ways, but rather that these are the most common manifestations of having low self-control.

Thinking about these characteristics allows us to not only better understand these individuals but also be able to better predict how their personalities may translate into harmful actions. 

What are the elements of self control theory? 

The Self-Control Theory of Crime can be broken down further into three major elements:

Parental management/socialization thesis

This component is the core of the self-control theory of crime. It holds that inadequate parenting is what is responsible for lower levels of self-control.

When parents insufficiently monitor the behavior and recognize and punish deviance (i.e., when parents don’t exhibit traits that resemble those of good parents) at early stages of a child’s life, this encourages the child to have an overall lack of self-control that motivates their criminal activity.  

Stability thesis

This thesis states that self-control is developed early in childhood and remains relatively stable throughout the course of a person’s life after a person reaches the age of 10 (Hay & Forrest, 2006).

It also argues that not only is self-control stable throughout time but so is continuity in offending. In other words, after an individual commits their first crime, the likelihood that they will re-commit a future crime (defined as recidivism ) is high.

This is a result of persistent heterogeneity or the idea that there are stable underlying differences across individuals that affect how people behave in all situations and make them unique from one another. 

Spuriousness thesis

The third and final key element of the self-control theory is the idea that many social experiences and relationships that researchers often attribute to being the cause of crime are, in reality, not true causes and rather spurious (or fake) correlates of crime that is really a result from low self-control (Junger & Tremblay, 1999).

This thesis emphasizes that low self-control, above all other potential explanations for crime, best explains why an individual may engage in such lawless activity and disregards other explanations. 

How does self-control theory explain crime? 

As discussed, the self-control theory helps to explain why certain individuals have a higher propensity for criminal activity.

Gottfredson and Hirschi argue that individuals who were inadequately parented before the age of ten develop less self-control because their parents did not monitor their behavior and discipline them accordingly.

As a result of this lack of self-control, these children are more inclined to listen to immediate impulses and neglect to consider any long-term consequences that could potentially result from unlawful actions.

Although actions that result from a lack of self-control are not unique to criminal behavior (it can be as simple as punching someone with whom you are angry), in the context of crime, a lack of self-control typically causes misdemeanor crimes such as drunk driving, fraud, or petty theft.

This does not mean that a lack of self-control cannot also result in certain white-collar crimes, such as money laundering or embezzlement, or more serious felonies, such as domestic abuse or murder, but this tends to be less common. 

Although the self-control theory put forth by Gottfredson and Hirschi largely focuses on the environmental role of the type of parenting a child receives, it is also important to acknowledge the role of biology that interacts with this environmental factor to produce a lack of self-control.

The prefrontal cortex (PFC), the region of the brain responsible for cognitive functioning, helps mediate self-control. But the PFC does not fully develop until an individual is roughly 25 years old (Arain et al., 2013), making younger children more likely to act rashly and impulsively.

Beyond PFC development, other biological factors such as birth complications, maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy, and genetic polymorphisms are also linked to a lack of self-control (Boutwell & Beaver, 2010).

These biological and social factors can contribute to a child’s impulsive personality that drives them to commit crimes. 

Self-control theory and victimization 

Research demonstrates how a lack of self-control does not only contribute to criminal activity but can also often lead to the victimization of an individual (i.e., being victims of crime; Pratt et al., 2014).

Specifically, low self-control has been found to be positively associated with both violent and property victimizations (Ren et al., 2017). This reveals the complexities of the role of self-control and crime — being a perpetrator is not the only outcome. 

Self-control theory and cybercrime 

Beyond common misdemeanors like drunk driving, a lack of self-control also motivates cybercrimes. Research has found that low self-control is positively correlated with cyber deviance in general (Holt et al., 2012).

Specifically, hacking is a common form of cybercrime that directly results from a lack of self-control. Sinchul Back and colleagues (2018) conducted research on self-control and social bonding, finding that both of these factors are significant predictors for the execution of computer hacking offenses.

Computer hacking is a common avenue for low-self-control youth because it can provide these individuals with immediate forms of income, especially at a life stage when gaining wealth is more difficult than during adulthood (Richet, 2013).

Additionally, the barriers to hacking have become much lower and less complex over the years, making it a feat that is easy to accomplish and requires little planning (Richet, 2013).

Self-control theory and domestic violence 

Unfortunately, research points to a linkage between self-control and domestic violence. A study conducted by Christine Sellers (1999) found that low self-control, opportunity, and the perception of immediate gratification were significant predictors of using violence in a dating relationship.

However, a more recent meta-analysis done by Yayouk Williams and colleagues (2018) found only a small to moderate negative association between self-control and family violence (i.e., less self-control led to more family violence).

Thus, more research is needed to better understand the relationship between self-control and domestic violence. 

Self-control theory and serial killers

Although misdemeanors are definitely more common among those with low self-control, there is also a relationship between low self-control, bad parenting, and being a serial killer.

Those who grow up in neglectful environments not only develop low levels of self-control but also become unable to form meaningful relationships and resort to extreme forms of crime.

In accordance with this, research reveals that serial killers do appear to have low-self control (Zeigler, 2007). 

Self-control theory and white-collar crime 

In addition to extreme felonies, those who are lower on self-control may be more prone to develop attitudes that motivate them to commit white-collar crimes (Lugo, 2013).

As with other forms of crime, having a lack of self-control makes people more impulsive and less likely to consider the consequences of their actions, including engaging in white-collar activity, such as identity theft and money laundering. 

Self-control theory juvenile delinquency 

Finally, self-control theory also plays a role in explaining broader juvenile delinquency. The interaction of genetic and environmental factors previously discussed helps to make sense of why a juvenile would engage in such behavior.

Additionally, a lack of self-control also helps to explain why an individual would re-commit a crime (i.e., why recidivism rates are high among juveniles; DeLisi & Vaugn, 2008).

Self-control theory strengths and weaknesses 

The Self-Control Theory of Crime has been around for more than three decades and helps us better understand why certain individuals are more likely to commit crimes.

That being said, there is insufficient empirical evidence to actually support this claim. Additionally, this theory does not help explain why some children who are raised under nonideal circumstances turn to crime and others do not.

Thus, it is unclear the extent to which this theory is truly a general theory of crime. Furthermore, while bad parenting is certainly one factor that helps to explain why certain people have lower levels of self-control, this is by no means the only factor.

Neighborhoods, attachment to teachers and peers, and other factors also play a strong role in the development of self-control. 

Therefore, while this theory has obvious strengths in contributing to our collective understanding of why people commit crimes, the Self-Control Theory of Crime does not paint the full picture and thus, more research is needed to fully understand the drivers behind criminal activity. 

Arain, M., Haque, M., Johal, L., Mathur, P., Nel, W., Rais, A., … & Sharma, S. (2013). Maturation of the adolescent brain. Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment , 9 , 449.

Back, S., Soor, S., & LaPrade, J. (2018). Juvenile hackers: An empirical test of self-control theory and social bonding theory. International Journal of Cybersecurity Intelligence & Cybercrime , 1 (1), 40-55.

Boutwell, B. B., & Beaver, K. M. (2010). Maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy and offspring externalizing behavioral problems: a propensity score matching analysis. International journal of environmental research and public health , 7 (1), 146-163.

DeLisi, M., & Vaughn, M. G. (2008). The Gottfredson–Hirschi critiques revisited: Reconciling self-control theory, criminal careers, and career criminals. International Journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology , 52 (5), 520-537.

Gottfredson, M. (2017). Self-control theory and crime. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice .

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

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

Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. (1983). Age and the explanation of crime. American journal of sociology , 89 (3), 552-584. 

Holt, T.J., Bossler, A.M., & May, D.C. (2012). Low self-control, deviant peer associations, and juvenile cyberdeviance. American Journal of Criminal Justice : AJCJ, 37(3) , 378-395. doi:10.1007/s12103-011-9117-3

Junger, M., & Tremblay, R. E. (1999). Self-control, accidents, and crime. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 26 (4), 485-501.

Lugo, M. A. (2013). Self-control, attitudinal beliefs, and white-collar crime intentions . University of South Florida.

Nye, F. I. (1958). Family relationships and delinquent behavior.

Pratt, T. C., Turanovic, J. J., Fox, K. A., & Wright, K. A. (2014). Self‐control and victimization: A meta‐analysis. Criminology , 52 (1), 87-116.

Ren, L., He, N. P., Zhao, R., & Zhang, H. (2017). Self-control, risky lifestyles, and victimization: A study with a sample of Chinese school youth. Criminal justice and behavior , 44 (5), 695-716.

Richer, J.L. (2013). From young hackers to crackers. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 9(3) , 53-62. doi:10.4018/jthi.2013070104

Sellers, C. S. (1999). Self‐control and intimate violence: An examination of the scope and specification of the general theory of crime. Criminology , 37 (2), 375-404.

Willems, Y. E., Li, J. B., Hendriks, A. M., Bartels, M., & Finkenauer, C. (2018). The relationship between family violence and self-control in adolescence: A multi-level meta-analysis. International journal of environmental research and public health , 15 (11), 2468.

Zeigler, N. (2007). Inside the Mind of a Serial Killer.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Criminal Justice

IResearchNet

Academic Writing Services

Self-control theory.

Self-control theory—often referred to as the general theory of crime—has emerged as one of the major theoretical paradigms in the field of criminology. This is no small feat, given the diversity of criminological perspectives that exist in general and the ever-growing roster of recently sprouted control theories in particular. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I. Introduction

Ii. self-control as a general theory of crime, a. the context of the 1980s, b. the nature of low self-control, c. the “development” of low self-control, d. self-control and crime, iii. empirical status of the general theory of crime, iv. critiques of self-control theory, a. adult social bonds and life course criminology, b. the enduring importance of deviant peers, c. sources of self-control, v. future directions, vi. conclusion.

Self-control theory—often referred to as the general theory of crime—has emerged as one of the major theoretical paradigms in the field of criminology. This is no small feat, given the diversity of criminological perspectives that exist in general and the ever-growing roster of recently sprouted control theories in particular. To be sure, scholars have developed models of formal social control (e.g., rational choice/deterrence theories), informal social control (e.g., social disorganization, collective efficacy), indirect control (e.g., social bond theories), power control, and so on, yet self-control theory has arguably become the most influential member of the control theory family since its publication by M. R. Gottfredson and Hirschi in 1990.

Accordingly, the purpose of this research paper is fourfold:

• (1) to provide an overview of the core theoretical propositions specified by self-control theory (i.e., what causes crime, according to this perspective?);
• (2) to critically assess its empirical status (i.e., what does the body of studies testing this theory have to say about the degree to which Gottfredson and Hirschi were right?);
• (3) to highlight the criticisms leveled against it (i.e., where do there appear to be “holes” in the theory?); and, finally,
• (4) to specify directions for future research within the self-control tradition.

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) sought to accomplish a number of goals when they formulated their theory of self-control and crime. At the most fundamental level, they reinterpreted and reintroduced the classical school of thought in combination with a positivistic methodological orientation. More specifically, they intended to create a theory on the basis of what was known from research about criminal events and criminals rather than to rehash empirically vague sociological theories. Finally, they sought to develop a theory that would explain crime generally, that is, across times, persons, and situations.

Doing this, however, would require a good look at criminal acts and criminals, something that Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) claimed criminologists had not really done. They suggested that criminologists have instead focused their efforts on explaining crime in light of artificial statutory definitions and a rejection of individual choice. Accordingly, this has led to an abundance of theories that have succeeded in accounting for only a small proportion of the variance in crime; blindness to deviant behaviors that are analogous to crime; and misapprehension of criminals as being specialists, as opposed to generalists. Thus, to develop the general theory, Gottfredson and Hirschi started by looking at what criminologists do know about crime and criminals. Their research revealed that criminal events are generally based on immediate gratification or removal of an irritant, are easy, and are varied. Similarly, they found that criminals displayed characteristics similar to crime events: Criminals were found among individuals seeking immediate and easy gratification and whose behavior included numerous types of crime and other deviant behaviors. Gottfredson and Hirschi therefore claimed that the crime and the criminal were contiguous elements.

At the heart of criminal events and criminals was one stable construct: low self-control. This, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) claimed, explained criminal acts and behavior across time, gender, ethnicity, and crime types. Beyond crime, low self-control was further evident in behavior analogous to criminal acts, such as antisocial (but not illegal), deviant, and risk-taking behavior (e.g., smoking, excessive drinking, riding a bike without a helmet, skydiving). This, according to Gottfredson and Hirschi, constituted a general theory of crime: Low self-control was the general, antecedent cause of forceful/fraudulent acts “undertaken in pursuit of self-interest” (p. 15).

Lilly, Cullen, and Ball (2007) declared that Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) theory has remained a robustly empirically supported criminological theory throughout the almost two decades since A General Theory of Crime was published. Lilly and colleagues ascribed such popularity to the theory’s parsimonious nature; the combative stance it takes against structural theories, which draws attention from the academy; and the fact that it is elegantly testable. The theory’s popularity can also be explained in light of the context in which it was developed: the 1980s, which witnessed a renewed interest in individual-level explanations of criminal behavior (Pratt & Cullen, 2005). This renewal coincided with a conservative takeover of criminal justice policy throughout the United States, owing much to the reaction/ response to the prior two decades of secularism, hedonism, and social welfare programs (Pratt, 2009). During the 1960s and 1970s, it was common within the university environment to question the status quo and social order. Race, class, and gender inequalities were increasingly being discussed and debated, and crime became linked to such inequalities, as well as to inequalities associated with legitimate social and economic opportunities. Crime was also explained in terms of the state’s response to criminals. It was during this time that labeling and Marxist theories were popular among criminologists (Lilly et al., 2007).

The ideological pendulum swung most forcefully at the beginning of the 1980s, with the election of Ronald Reagan and the institutionalization of the “silent majority’s” agenda. This movement was characterized by patriotism, hard work, religion, and the role of the individual in directing his or her affairs. This time was also characterized by a mistrust of secular culture and a lack of patience with social welfare programs and policies (Murray, 1984). In this environment, several conservative values-based criminological theories proliferated that emphasized choice and agency among individuals in the commission of criminal acts and that shifted the focus of the criminal justice system toward a punitive orientation. Furthermore, emphasis was placed on the role of families as agents of social control. It was in this context that Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) proclaimed that they “have for some time been unhappy with the ability of academic criminology to provide believable explanations of criminal behavior” (p. xiii).

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) defined self-control as “the tendency of people to avoid criminal acts whatever the circumstances in which they find themselves” (p. 87). Thus, low self-control can essentially be defined as a lack of that tendency. Individuals with low self-control are characterized as impulsive, insensitive, physical, “risk-taking, short-sighted, and nonverbal” (p. 91). In short, these are “factors affecting calculation of the consequence of one’s acts” (p. 95). Gottfredson and Hirschi further elaborated on the behavior and attitudes of individuals with low self-control, stating that such individuals have a here-and-now orientation; they lack diligence, tenacity, and persistence; and they are self-centered, indifferent, and insensitive. Furthermore, people who lack self-control tend to exhibit adventure-someness and are active and physical; they also generally have unstable families, friendships, and professional lives. Finally, individuals with low self-control can be characterized as having a minimal tolerance for frustration; they tend to respond to conflict physically rather than verbally; and they do not necessarily possess or value verbal, academic, cognitive, or even manual skills. Because of these characteristics, individuals with low self-control may not only be involved in crime, but they may also be involved in various other risky behaviors, such as smoking, doing drugs, and engaging in illicit sex. According to Gottfredson and Hirschi, low self-control is the stable construct that ties all of these characteristics, attitudes, and behaviors together. It is a construct that is recognizable in childhood, prior to the age of accountability, and is stable throughout the life course.

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) contended that, ultimately, one does not develop low self-control. Instead, possessing low self-control is more a matter of having not developed self-control as a young child. Accordingly, low self-control manifests itself in the “absence of nurturance, discipline, or training” (p. 95). Stated otherwise, “The causes of low self-control are negative rather than positive; self-control is unlikely in the absence of effort, intended or unintended, to create it” (p. 95). Here Gottfredson and Hirschi are stating that if a person does not develop self-control, the default is low self-control. Acquiring self-control is a matter of socialization.

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) placed the onus of this socialization primarily on parents. A child with low self-control then becomes the product of “ineffective childrearing” (p. 97). Specifically, the authors stated that consistent supervision and discipline, coupled with affection, results in the proper development of self-control. They noted that several things may impede this socialization process, however, including parents who may not feel affection toward their children or who lack the time or energy to devote to supervision, and parents who may not see problem behavior for what it is and who may, having witnessed and processed their child’s inappropriate behavior, not be so inclined to punish them. Such situations may become exacerbated when parents engage in behavior indicative of low self-control themselves.

It is important to note that this perspective differs in a fundamental way from Hirschi’s (1969) social bond theory. Specifically, Hirschi’s original social bond theory held that, once social bonds were formed between a child and parents, parents would then be able to indirectly control the behavior of their children. Put differently, once the bond was established—even if the child was quite young—the child would voluntarily control his behavior even in the absence of a parent watching over him, because he would feel the psychological presence of the parental guardian, who would be disappointed in the child should he misbehave. For Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), however, the faith in indirect control was abandoned in favor of a model that emphasized the importance of direct parental control; that is, parents should not expect children to control themselves (at least not prior to the formation of self-control, which should happen by around age 8–10), but instead it is only through direct supervision and control that self-control may be instilled. In the end, Gottfredson and Hirschi conceived of self-control as a singly unitary factor that is formed early in life through effective parenting, fixed by a relatively young age, stable over the life course, and solely responsible for explaining the variation in criminal/ deviant behavior across individuals.

Classical theories of crime did not assume that some individuals were more predisposed to criminal conduct than others; instead, such theories assumed that it was one’s location in the social system, or whether one understood the nature of sanctions, that determined whether one was a criminal. Criminals and non-criminals alike had one purpose in mind: to enhance their exposure to pleasure and to reduce their exposure to pain. Therefore, classical criminologists sought to combat crime by increasing painful sanctions through the legal and moral systems of the time. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990, p. 85) therefore referred to classical theories as theories of social control.

On the other hand, positivism did assume differential propensities to commit crime; that is, that criminals and non-criminals were different in some fundamental respect (be it biological, psychological, economic, or sociological). Early positivists, however, denied the impact of social location, assuming that criminal propensities remained stable regardless of social location. Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) answer to these opposing views was to join them under the category of low self-control; that is, they explained crimes in terms of both individual propensity (positivist theory) and in terms of the desire to enhance pleasure while reducing pain (classical theory). One’s ability to avoid criminal acts (keeping in mind Gottfredson and Hirschi’s expansive definition of crime) and analogous behaviors are dependent on his or her level of self-control in light of environmental contingencies. Crime, and its analogous behavior, is simply a manifestation of low self-control.

To illustrate, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990, pp. 89–90) sifted through a number of attitudes, behaviors, and characteristics of individuals with low self-control and demonstrated how each relates to crime. First, low self-control is associated with having a present orientation, as opposed to being able to defer gratification. Accordingly, individuals with low self-control are likely to commit crimes because such acts amount to the immediate gratification of one’s desires. Similarly, those with low self-control tend to lack diligence, tenacity, and persistence. Again, crime events are easy and represent a simple means of gratifying one’s appetites while not requiring pesky or inconvenient long-term planning or commitment. Low self-control is also associated with adventurous, physical activities, making such individuals especially prone to crime. Individuals with low self-control generally have shaky marriages, unstable friendships, and spotty job histories. This demonstrates an inability on their part to form long-term plans, which is equally amenable to the short-term nature of crime and analogous conduct. Similarly, the fact that individuals with low self-control are more likely to engage in such analogous behavior indicates a preference for immediate pleasure and an inability to defer gratification. Finally, low self-control is associated with minimal tolerance thresholds and a self-centered, indifferent attitude, which allows criminals to remove themselves from the harm they do to their victims and gives them the justifications for committing crimes (i.e., in an effort to remove frustrations and pains).

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) noted that the criminological literature demonstrates that, for the most part, offenders are generalists, not specialists (Blumstein, Cohen, Roth, & Visher, 1986; see also Sullivan, McGloin, Pratt, & Piquero, 2006). This makes sense in light of the concept of low self-control: Individuals with low self-control are unable to focus to the extent required to specialize in one area, even within crime. This is evident in the fact that individuals with low self-control do not maintain marriages, jobs, and other activities that require commitment and diligence. Furthermore, Gottfredson and Hirschi considered crime to be simple and easy in general, begging the question as to why one would specialize when it is easier and quicker to generalize in one’s offending preferences. Finally, that offenders generalize is evidenced by Gottfredson and Hirschi’s contention that individuals with low self-control engage in criminal, risky, and antisocial behavior because opportunities to engage in such behavior are constantly present. Furthermore, according to Gottfredson and Hirschi, low self-control predates and predicts all other correlates of criminal behavior. Moreover, Gottfredson and Hirschi maintained that their theory can robustly predict criminal behavior across gender, time, sex, and ethnicity. They ultimately claimed that their theory succeeds in revitalizing the classical assertion that pleasure and harm avoidance guide human behavior, including criminal behavior.

Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) theory makes many testable claims, some of which have weathered the storm of empirical criticism, others of which remain wanting. In general, however, the general theory of crime has remained robustly supported across multiple types of samples, methodologies, and variations in measurement, in terms of its central claim that low self-control predicts criminal and analogous behaviors. In Gottfredson’s (2006) most recent review of the literature, he concluded that low self-control has remained predictive across gender, location, age, race, offense type, offenders, analogous behavior, and time. Lilly et al. (2007) further noted that the theory has received extensive support across individual studies, a comprehensive meta-analysis, and a full narrative literature review. Akers and Sellers’s (2004) review also found substantial support for self-control theory across cultures, explaining anywhere from 3.0% to 19.0% of the variation in criminal behavior.

The most quantitatively sound review of the general theory of crime was conducted by Pratt and Cullen (2000), who used meta-analytic techniques to ascertain the empirical status of self-control theory. The authors’ data came from 21 peer-reviewed published articles, for a total of 126 effect size estimates, across 17 individual data sets, and a total of 49,727 individual cases. To control for measurement effects, the researchers coded for whether studies had used behavioral versus attitudinal measures of self-control; when attitudinal measurements were used, the studies were further coded to control for whether the researchers used Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, and Arneklev’s (1993) extremely popular self-control scale. Finally, Pratt and Cullen controlled for whether studies had used longitudinal versus cross-sectional research designs. In terms of the predictive value of low self-control as it relates to crime, they found that the effect size of low self-control regularly exceeded 0.20, net of variables specified by other theories and methodological considerations. Furthermore, the meta-analysis results supported the theory’s contention that crime and analogous behavior can be predicted from a single source (low self-control) across race, sex, age, and community. It is important to note that Pratt and Cullen found that similar effect sizes were found across behavioral and attitudinal scales of self-control and regardless of whether attitudinal scales invoked Grasmick et al.’s indicators of low self-control. These findings go a long way toward responding to the criticism that self-control studies that use behavioral measurements are inherently tautological (i.e., that the use of behavioral indicators of low self-control—in short, deviant yet legal behaviors—to predict other deviant yet illegal behaviors merely amounts to bad behavior being related to bad behavior, a finding of little interest to criminologists).

Beyond the low self-control–criminal behavior link, Pratt and Cullen’s (2000) meta-analysis failed to support at least two of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) contentions, namely, (1) that the self-control–crime relationship would hold across both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies and (2) that low self-control represents a general explanation of behavior. Gottfredson and Hirschi argued that because self-control is invariant across the life course, cross-sectional research designs (which represent the bulk of social science research) were adequate for testing self-control theory. Pratt and Cullen, however, found that the effect sizes for self-control were significantly weaker in longitudinal studies compared to those from cross-sectional studies. Further, Gottfredson and Hirschi explicitly stated the irrelevance of other criminological theories because of their assumption that self-control was a precursor to all other criminogenic factors. Even so, Pratt and Cullen found that variables specified by social learning theory—in particular, deviant peer influences and antisocial attitudes—not only had an impact on crime independent of self-control but also increased the explanatory power of each study’s overall statistical models. This strongly suggests that Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime may not be so general.

Indeed, much of the research reviewed by Akers and Sellers (2004) and by Lilly et al. (2007) found Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) claims beyond the low self-control– criminal behavior connection wanting. For example, Akers and Sellers found mixed results for the hypothesis concerning the relative stability of self-control over the life course, with some research suggesting its relative stability, others indicating its variability, and yet others finding it to be at once both stable and variable. They found similar results among the research exploring the extent to which low self-control is a unidimensional factor. Furthermore, they found research suggesting that, in regard to low self-control’s causes, those proposed by Gottfredson and Hirschi were predictive, but not independent other factors, such as fair discipline and parental acceptance. Similarly, Lilly et al. found support for sources of low self-control outside of the family, including neighborhood-level factors as well neurobiological factors—findings that are reviewed at length later in this research paper.

Ultimately, the central proposition of the general theory of crime—that low self-control predicts criminal, delinquent, antisocial, and analogous behaviors—holds across several studies, methodologies, samples, and measurements. Research has not, however, supported Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) claim to having authored a “general” theory. Instead, it appears that their theory of criminal behavior, based on levels of low self-control, specifies a vital predictor of criminal behavior that is necessary for criminological models so as to avoid misspecification but is nevertheless far from the sole predictor of criminal and deviant behavior.

Scholars have taken issue with a number of tenets of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) theory, from its seeming inability to explain white-collar offending to problems with how researchers should go about measuring self-control. Others have called attention to the potential problem of rectifying the explanation of crime—that such behavior is due to a single latent trait that is stable over time—with the well-known age–crime curve (the observed empirical pattern in which adults tend to reduce their rate of criminal behavior following a peak in their late teens). Although these debates are certainly important in their own right and will most definitely continue into the future, Gottfredson and Hirschi face their most serious challenges with regard to the following: (a) the influence of adult social bonds in the criminal desistance process, (b) the enduring importance of deviant peer influences on one’s criminal behavior, and (c) the sources of self-control.

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) were clear in their assertion that changes in one’s social circumstances from childhood, to adolescence, to early adulthood and beyond are irrelevant to the explanation of crime. In particular, according to Gottfredson and Hirschi, the age–crime curve cannot be predicted by traditional sociological variables, such as marriage and work. Instead, the authors claimed that the attachments to employment and spouses are merely consequences of self-control; that is, people with higher levels of self-control are more likely to self-select into healthier relationships with work and family. That such factors are, in turn, associated with reductions in criminal behavior therefore comes as no surprise to Gottfredson and Hirschi. Indeed, one would expect relationships to exist between an adult’s bonds to social conventions (e.g., marriage and work) and criminal behavior, because both emerge from the common source of self-control.

Recent developments in life course theory and research, however, paint a much different picture. To be sure, the work conducted by Sampson and Laub (1993; see also Laub & Sampson, 2003) has taken levels of self-control into account in an assessment of the role that adult social bonds play in the criminal desistance process. Specifically, their study of men’s criminal behavior up to age 70 revealed that, independent of one’s level of self-control, attachment and involvement with prosocial activities through employment and marriage significantly reduce levels of offending. Thus, although it is certainly true that individuals with lower levels of self-control find it more difficult to form the kinds of social relationships necessary for a stable work and family life, those who do nonetheless do a better job of controlling whatever criminal impulses they were previously in the habit of letting loose. These findings are particularly challenging of Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) because they indicate that the explanation of criminal behavior over the life course clearly requires more than the specification of a single variable that is assumed to be fixed within individuals by age 10.

In extending the importance of understanding the context in which people (both children and adults) live their lives, scholars have also taken issue with Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) rather bold assertion that deviant peer influences—a staple of criminology for years—are also irrelevant to the explanation of crime. Like the influence of adult social bonds, Gottfredson and Hirschi argued that individuals with low self-control will seek each other out because of their common interests in engaging in risky behaviors that provide immediate gratification. Thus, the concept of the deviant peer group, which has been a mainstay in the social learning tradition in criminology for at least six decades, is merely the consequence of self-control, according to Gottfredson and Hirschi.

The problem again, however, comes when the empirical evidence is examined. In particular, Pratt and Cullen’s (2000) meta-analysis of the self-control literature found that the relationship between deviant peers and one’s own criminal behavior was every bit as strong as that between self-control and crime. These peer effects stood up even in studies that included statistical controls for self-control. Thus, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) claim that peer influences should not matter once self-control is taken into account is inconsistent with the social scientific evidence. Instead, the research indicates that both self-control and deviant peer influences are important to the explanation of criminal behavior.

Although the link between self-control and crime/deviance has been consistently demonstrated empirically, what is less clear at this point is how self-control is established within individuals. As stated earlier, the primary explanation regarding the “cause” of self-control according to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) involves a parenting thesis. In short, Gottfredson and Hirschi contended that self-control will develop in children through effective parenting, whereby parents who monitor their kids’ behavior, recognize deviant behavior when it happens, and punish such behavior consistently will produce in their children the internal control mechanisms necessary for resisting the temptations that criminal and deviant behavior provide. Support for this proposition is certainly present (Hay, 2001; McGloin, Pratt, & Maahs, 2004; Perrone, Sullivan, Pratt, & Margaryan, 2004); nevertheless, empirical evidence has emerged indicating that the processes that establish individuals’ levels of self-control are more complex than those specified by Gottfredson and Hirschi. This problem is beginning to emerge as perhaps the most serious challenge to the validity of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory, and research related to this question comes from multiple fronts.

First, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) downplayed the possibility that low self-control has a genetic or biological component. For example, following their analysis of adoption studies, they argued that this research provides “strong evidence that the inheritance of criminality is minimal. . . . we conclude that the ‘genetic effect’ . . . is near zero” (p. 60). They also noted that “obviously, we do not suggest that people are born criminals, inherit a gene from criminality, or anything of that sort. In fact, we explicitly deny such notions” (p. 96). Gottfredson and Hirschi nevertheless raised the possibility that “individual differences may have an impact on the prospects for effective socialization (or adequate control)” (p. 96), yet they quickly countered that such differences would be important only if they resulted in problematic responses from parenting, once again echoing the importance of parental efficacy in the development of self-control.

A number of criminologists, however, fundamentally disagree with this position and have instead adopted a more interdisciplinary (as opposed to strictly sociological) view of the sources of self-control—one that recognizes the intellectual contributions of psychology and biology to the understanding of human behavior (see, e.g., Pratt, Cullen, Blevins, Daigle, & Unnever, 2002; Pratt, McGloin, & Fearn, 2006). Accordingly, despite the evidence of a parenting–self-control link, these scholars have noted a potential model misspecification problem with this line of research. In particular, much of this work has failed to consider potential biological and neuropsychological sources of self-control independent of (and in conjunction with) parental sources.

To that end, research has begun to emerge that examines these alternative sources of low self-control (Pratt, 2009).As such, two primary conclusions can be reached from this body of work. First, indicators of biological predisposition (e.g., attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; indicators of neuropsychological deficits, such as low birth weight and low cognitive ability) are significantly related to levels of self-control independent of measures of effective parenting (McGloin, Pratt, & Piquero, 2006; Unnever, Cullen, & Pratt, 2003; Walsh, 2002). Second, controls for such biological and neuropsychological factors tend to partially mediate— and in some cases fully mediate—the effect of parenting on the development of self-control (see, e. g., Wright & Beaver, 2005). Taken together, this research indicates that certain biological and neuropsychological risk factors need to be considered in the formation of self-control.

Another line of research into the sources of self-control highlights the interrelationships among community context, parenting, and the development of self-control. Specifically, to the extent that communities act “as a complex system of friendship and kinship networks and formal and informal associational ties rooted in family life and ongoing socialization processes” (Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974, p. 329), it seems particularly important to focus on how different types of neighborhoods influence parenting behavior and, in turn, the development of self-control in children. Researchers have begun to do just that. The first study in this tradition was Pratt, Turner, and Piquero’s (2004) analysis of data drawn from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, which found that conditions of neighborhood deprivation significantly influenced measures of parental monitoring and socialization. Furthermore, such neighborhood conditions directly affected the development of self-control in children independent of the measures of parental efficacy. A subsequent study by Hay, Fortson, Hollist, Altheimer, and Schaible (2006) went a step further and found a significant interaction between neighborhood conditions and parental efficacy on the development of self-control. This work clearly indicates that community context is yet another factor that must be seriously considered by scholars with regard to the development of self-control in children.

Furthermore, although attributing the main sources of self-control to parental socialization, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) also acknowledged that school has certain advantages to socializing children. First, schools, and teachers in particular, have the ability to monitor several students at one time. Second, because of their interest in maintaining a healthy educational environment, teachers are in a good position to recognize antisocial behavior when children are exhibiting it. Third, many schools and teachers are given the authority to maintain order and to implement effective discipline. Therefore, Gottfredson and Hirschi suggested that “like the family, the school in theory has the authority and the means to punish lapses in self-control” (p. 105).Also, as Denise Gottfredson (2001) observed, “Schools have the potential to teach self-control and to engage informal social controls to hold youthful behavior in check” (p. 48).

Empirical work has recently emerged that has tested these various propositions. Turner, Piquero, and Pratt’s (2005) analysis of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth data revealed two conclusions along these lines. First, indicators of school socialization (which closely resembled typical parenting measures associated with the monitoring and supervision of children) were significantly related to the development of self-control, independent of parental efficacy. Second, the effects of school socialization on youth’s levels of self-control varied according to (i.e., interacted with) levels of parental efficacy as well as conditions of neighborhood deprivation. In particular, the effect of school socialization on children’s development of self-control was strongest when parental efficacy was low and when neighborhood conditions were criminogenic. These results therefore highlight the ability of social institutions—in this case, the school—to pick up the slack for instilling self-control in children when other mechanisms, such as parents and the community, break down.

For the continued vitality of the self-control tradition, there are a number of directions future research should take. First, future empirical work should continue to focus on the complex relationships surrounding parenting and the development of self-control in children. In particular, the literature examining the influence of structural/community characteristics on parental efficacy, although certainly important, is still in its infancy. In addition, there is still a need to systematically assess the causal mechanisms underlying the relationship between ineffective parenting and self-control in children. Specifically, some scholars have highlighted the potential for “child effects” on parenting, whereby children with early temperament and behavioral problems may be more likely to elicit problematic responses from parents (e.g., overly lenient or inconsistently harsh parenting practices; see Moffitt, 1993). Nevertheless, whether these effects exist independent of parents’ levels of self-control is still unclear (see Nofziger, 2008); that is, do difficult children elicit bad parenting, or do the parents of such children simply lack self-control themselves and therefore the capacity to exert vigilant and consistent control over their children? Either way, the problem is that the comparative validity of these two explanations for the parenting–self-control relationship has yet to be assessed.

Second, it would be particularly useful for future studies to continue to assess systematically the interaction effects surrounding parenting, biological and neuropsychological deficits, and community and institutional efficacy on self-control. As such, three questions are immediately salient: (1) Is the effect of neuropsychological deficit on self-control more pronounced for children with low parental efficacy? (2) is the effect of neuropsychological deficit on self-control more pronounced for children in environments with low community or institutional efficacy? and (3) are child effects on parental efficacy more pronounced for parents with low self-control? Answering each of these questions would help to flesh out the complexity of the causes of self-control in critically important ways.

Finally, future studies should continue the recent work of Baumeister and colleagues regarding self-control depletion (Baumeister, 2002). In essence, this perspective focuses on the consequences to individuals when they exercise self-control; namely, because self-control may be a limited resource within any given person, using it in one situation may partially consume it so that it may less available in future situations. This prospect may be particularly important for individuals with relatively high levels of self-control who reside in neighborhoods plagued by multiple criminogenic risk factors (e.g., limited opportunities for legitimate participation in the labor market; constantly having to resist cultural pressures to engage in “code of the street” behavior; see Anderson, 1999). Indeed, because such individuals will inevitably be forced to exercise their self-control on a regular basis should they want to resist the criminal opportunities and temptations surrounding them, they are most likely to be susceptible to self-control depletion. Furthermore, because replenishing one’s reserves of self-control takes time and distance away from the kinds of social pressures that cause depletion in the first place, individuals residing in harsh neighborhood conditions will find it more difficult to restock their levels of self-control. If this is the case, it may be that variations in the degree to which individuals’ self-control becomes depleted—not merely variations in the distribution of individuals’ levels of self-control—help to explain the spatial distribution of crime across communities.

Along with the anomie/strain and social learning traditions, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) self-control theory has emerged in the last couple of decades as one of the major criminological paradigms in the field. Although a virtual empirical consensus has been reached with regard to the consequences of self-control (i.e., its effect on criminal and analogous behaviors), there is considerably less agreement among criminologists concerning the causes of self-control. What is clear, however, is that self-control as an explanation of criminal and deviant behavior is here to stay. What remains to be seen is how diligent scholars will continue to be in integrating it with other theories and how committed the self-control purists will be in resisting such a movement.

References:

• Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2004). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Roxbury.
• Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street. New York: Norton.
• Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Ego depletion and self-control failure: An energy model of the self ’s regulatory function. Self Identity, 1, 129–136.
• Beccaria, C. (1963). On crimes and punishments. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. (Original work published 1764)
• Blumstein,A., Cohen, J., Roth, J.A., & Visher, C. (1986). Criminal careers and “career criminals” (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• Gottfredson, D. C. (2001). Schools and delinquency. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Gottfredson, M. R. (2006). The empirical status of control theory in criminology. In Taking stock (pp. 77–100). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
• Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C.R., Bursik, R. J., & Arneklev, B. K. (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.
• Hay, C. (2001). Parenting, self-control, and delinquency: A test of self-control theory. Criminology, 39, 707–736.
• Hay C., Fortson, E. N., Hollist, D. R., Altheimer, I., & Schaible, L. A. (2006). The impact of community disadvantage on the relationship between the family and juvenile crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43, 326–356.
• Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Kasarda, J. D., & Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attachment in mass society. American Sociological Review, 39, 328–339.
• Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Lilly, J. R., Cullen, F. T., & Ball, R.A. (2007). Criminological theory: Context and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• McGloin, J. M., Pratt, T. C., & Maahs, J. (2004). Re-thinking the IQ–delinquency relationship: A longitudinal analysis of multiple theoretical models. Justice Quarterly, 21, 601–631.
• McGloin, J. M., Pratt, T. C., & Piquero, A. (2006). A life-course analysis of the criminogenic effects of maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy: A research note on the mediating impact of neuropsychological deficit. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43, 412–426.
• Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescent-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701.
• Murray, C. A. (1984). Losing ground: American social policy, 1950–1980. New York: Basic Books.
• Nofziger, S. (2008). The “cause” of low self-control: The influence of maternal self-control. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 45, 191–224.
• Perrone, D., Sullivan, C., Pratt, T. C., & Margaryan, S. (2004). Parental efficacy, self-control, and delinquent behavior: A test of a general theory of crime on a nationally-representative sample. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 298–312.
• Pratt, T. C. (2009). Addicted to incarceration: Corrections policy and the politics of misinformation in the United States. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A metaanalysis. Criminology, 38, 931–964.
• Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2005). Assessing macro-level predictors and theories of crime: A meta-analysis. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 32, 373–450.
• Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Blevins, K. R., Daigle, L., & Unnever, J. D. (2002). The relationship of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder to crime and delinquency: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 4, 344–360.
• Pratt, T. C., McGloin, J. M., & Fearn, N. E. (2006). Maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy and criminal/ deviant behavior: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 672–690.
• Pratt, T. C., Turner, M. G., & Piquero, A. R. (2004). Parental socialization and community context: A longitudinal analysis of the structural sources of low self-control. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41, 219–243.
• Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Sullivan, C., McGloin, J. M., Pratt, T. C., & Piquero, A. R. (2006). Rethinking the “norm” of offender generality: Investigating specialization in the short-term. Criminology, 44, 199–234.
• Turner,M. G., Piquero,A. R., & Pratt,T. C. (2005).The school context as a source of self-control. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 327–339.
• Unnever, J. D., Cullen, F. T., & Pratt, T. C. (2003). Parental management, ADHD, and delinquent involvement: Reassessing Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory. Justice Quarterly, 20, 471–500.
• Walsh, A. (2002). Biosocial criminology: Introduction and integration. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
• Wright, J. P., & Beaver, K. (2005). Do parents matter in creating self-control in their children? A genetically informed test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory of low self-control. Criminology, 43, 1169–1202.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

The Link between Individual Personality Traits and Criminality: A Systematic Review

N. k. tharshini.

1 Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Kota Samarahan 94300, Sarawak, Malaysia

Fauziah Ibrahim

2 Centre for Research in Psychology and Human Well-Being, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysia; ym.ude.mku@haizuafi (F.I.); ym.ude.mku@kmihar (M.R.K.)

Mohammad Rahim Kamaluddin

Balan rathakrishnan.

3 Faculty of Psychology and Education, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabalu 88400, Sabah, Malaysia; ym.ude.smu@nalahbr

Norruzeyati Che Mohd Nasir

4 School of Applied Psychology, Social Work and Policy, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok 06010, Kedah, Malaysia; ym.ude.muu@itayez

In addition to social and environmental factors, individual personality traits have intricately linked with maladaptive behaviour. Thus, the purpose of this article was to review the link between individual personality traits and criminality. A systematic review was conducted to obtain information regarding the link between individual personality traits with criminal behaviour in the Sage, Web of Science, APA PsycNet, Wiley Online Library, and PubMed databases. The results indicate that individual personality traits that contribute towards criminality are (i) psychopathy; (ii) low self-control; and (iii) difficult temperament. As an overall impact, the review is expected to provide in-depth understanding of the link between individual personality traits and criminality; hence, greater consideration will be given to the dimension of personality as a notable risk factor of criminal behaviour.

1. Introduction

Criminology has become an interdisciplinary field where the focal point of each study has diversely evolved from individual-level to environmental-level risk factors associated with criminal behaviour. As such, individual personality traits constitute one dimension of the bigger picture which has received significant empirical attention in recent decades, especially research linking personality traits to various measures of crime. According to Beaver (2017) [ 1 ], personality refers to the stability of individuals in regard to patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving. In general, personality traits can be categorised into four general combinations, namely (i) high control–high affiliation; (ii) low control–low affiliation; (iii) high control–low affiliation; and (iv) low control–high affiliation [ 1 ]. Some empirical research has suggested that high interpersonal control and low interpersonal affiliation are strongly interrelated with antisocial behaviour [ 1 ].

The Big Five Model of Personality suggested that five domains largely account for individual differences in personality including (i) extraversion; (ii) openness; (iii) neuroticism; (iv) agreeableness; and (v) conscientiousness [ 2 ]. Sleep (2021) [ 2 ] stated that low conscientiousness, low agreeableness, and high neuroticism increase aggression, mental distress, and antisocial behaviour among individuals. Similarly, the personality theory constructed by Eysenck (1966) (trait-psychologist) proposes a significant relationship between criminal behaviour and personality variables [ 3 ]. Based on the Eysenck personality theory, there are three fundamental factors of personality including psychoticism (P), extraversion (E), and neuroticism (N) [ 3 ]. Empirical investigations discover that delinquents score high on the P scale compared to the E and N scales [ 3 ]. More specifically, the P scale predicts those involved in violence and sexual crimes, whereas the N scale predicts serious crime and recidivism [ 3 ]. Furthermore, a great deal of research has also found that psychoticism is always connected to crime, whereas extraversion is related to younger samples (young offenders/delinquent), and neuroticism is related to older samples (adult offenders) [ 3 ].

A meta-analysis related to personality and antisocial behaviour has concluded that individuals who commit crime tend to be self-centred, hostile, adhere to unconventional values/beliefs, and have difficulty controlling their impulses [ 4 ]. In addition, compared to non-offenders, individuals who commit crimes are less sociable, more aggressive, sensation seekers, and tend to score higher for the neuroticism and psychoticism dimensions [ 5 ]. Additionally, Jones et al., (2016) [ 5 ], and Cunha et al., (2018) [ 6 ], found that individual personality traits represent a predictor of criminal behaviour regardless of gender, race, age, or geographical location. Acknowledging the role of individual personality traits in relation to criminal behaviour, the current study seeks to develop an improved understanding of personality traits to impart significant information to the existing literature in the field of crime studies.

2. Materials and Methods

This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Keywords such as “personality”; “personality traits”; “individual personality”, “maladaptive behaviour”; “crime”, and “antisocial behaviour” were typed into the Sage, Web of Science, APA PsycNet, Wiley Online Library, and PubMed databases to find the relevant information.

2.1. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies that were included in this review are (i) full-text articles; (ii) articles published in Sage, Web of Science, APA PsycNet, Wiley Online Library, and PubMed; (iii) research with at least 20 respondents (to reduce the bias associated with a small sample size; (iv) studies that examine the link between personality traits and criminal behaviour; and (v) articles that were published from January 2016 to June 2021. Conversely, the exclusion criteria in this review were (i) duplicate publication; (ii) articles published before January 2016, (iii) studies with less than 20 respondents (due to small sample size); (iv) non-full-text articles; and (v) articles that do not reflect the link between personality traits and criminality.

2.2. Screening and Selection Process

For this review, a total of 22,608 sources were found in five well-established databases. A total number of 8007 articles were identified after duplicates were removed. After including other exclusion criteria such as non-full-text articles, year of publication and sample of studies, 127 articles were assessed for eligibility. Furthering this, 94 articles were removed at the eligibility stage since the content of the article did not clearly reflect the link between personality traits and criminality. In the end, 33 full-text articles were reviewed in this study. Figure 1 depicts the flowchart of the systematic review process, whereas Table 1 delineates the summary of articles that were reviewed in this study.

Flowchart of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).

Summary of articles.

3. Results and Discussion

Based on the systematic review, the finding of the study stipulates that there are three major personality traits which contribute towards criminal behaviour, namely (i) psychopathy; (ii) low self-control; and (iii) difficult temperament.

3.1. Psychopathy

The term “psychopathy” is commonly used in the global literature on both empirical and theoretical grounds. Psychopathy is a clinical construct associated with emotional and behavioural disturbance, which are considered important risk factors for criminal and antisocial behaviour, criminal recidivism, sexual recidivism, and instrumental violence [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. Most of the research concerning the measurement of psychopathy has employed Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist (now the Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist—Revised) as the main psychological assessment tool to identify the presence of psychopathic traits in an individual [ 8 ]. An individual who scores high for the psychopathy measure (usually > 30 on the PCL-R) is more likely to be short-tempered, irresponsible, egocentric, callous, display superficial charm, frequently violates social norms/values, and be unable to empathise [ 4 , 6 , 7 , 11 ]. Similarly, Boccio and Beaver (2016) [ 11 ] identified that an individual with psychopathic personality traits have a lower level of self-regulation, are manipulative, impulsive, and unable to feel remorse/guilt.

Based on the Big Five Model of Personality, scholars have stated that the psychopathy dimension is a mixture of high extraversion, low conscientiousness and agreeableness, and a combination of low and high neuroticism (depression, low anxiety, self-consciousness, vulnerability to stress, high impulsiveness, and hostility). For example, psychopathic criminals tend to commit a wider variety of crimes and are likely to recidivate faster compared to non-psychopathic criminals. In addition, the dominant conceptualization suggests that psychopathy is an inborn condition with a strong genetic component that is further escalated by environmental factors such as adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), traumatic childhood experiences, child maltreatment or parental inadequacy [ 12 , 13 ]. According to Cunha et al., (2018) [ 6 ], psychopathy is conventionally conceptualised as a syndrome that remains throughout life and influences different aspects of individual functioning, including their interpersonal, emotional, and behavioural traits. In addition, studies have revealed that psychopathy is more often diagnosed among men (31%) compared to women [ 4 ]. Similarly, an incarcerated individual with higher PCL-R scores is more prone to commit violent criminal offenses upon being released from prison [ 3 ]. Cunha et al. (2018) [ 6 ] also stated that individuals with psychopathic personality traits are unable to form strong emotional bonds with others and struggle to control their temper.

A burgeoning line of research has consistently revealed that the prevalence of psychopathic traits is higher among prisoners compared to general populations [ 6 , 7 ]. Theorist and researchers have more recently contended that approximately 1% of the general population exhibit psychopathic tendency, whereas approximately 15–25% of the prison population display these characteristics [ 14 ]. As such, individuals with psychopathic traits begin their criminal activities at a young age and continue to engage in antisocial behaviour throughout their lives [ 15 ]. In addition, myriad research outputs from the psychiatry, criminology, neuroscience, and psychology fields of study have shown that psychopathic personality traits are associated with serious juvenile offenders and adult criminals since these individuals are unable to process cues of punishment and rewards [ 5 , 6 , 8 , 16 , 17 ]. Moreover, recent neurocognitive findings unveiled that abnormalities in the amygdala (connected regions of the orbitofrontal cortex) may result in impaired decision making and social functioning, resulting in higher possibilities of engagement in antisocial behaviour [ 16 ].

Accumulating evidence stipulates that there are significant differences between types of crime which are commonly committed by a psychopathic female and male [ 18 ]. Generally, psychopathic females tend to be less aggressive and rarely repeat their criminal acts compared to males [ 18 ]. In addition, in some cases, psychopathic females have a significant level of impulsivity, a trait often associated with borderline personality disorder [ 18 , 19 ]. Furthermore, research related to psychopathic and sexual coercion shows that compared to non-psychopathic individuals, psychopaths are more likely to become sexual offenders (subgroup of rapists) [ 14 ]. Similarly, DeLisi et al. (2018) [ 16 ] notes that a psychopathic individual also displays severe alcohol and drug use (includes trying a greater variety of drugs and starting to use drugs at earlier age) compared to non-psychopathic populations.

3.2. Low Self-Control

Research examining the underpinnings of crime suggests that low self-control has been consistently linked with involvement in criminal activities [ 20 ]. Empirical evidence indicates that low self-control is associated with involvement in delinquency, violence, and antisocial behaviour [ 21 ]. According to Boccio et al. (2016) [ 11 ] individuals with low self-control are more impulsive, self-centred, prone to risky behaviour, irresponsible, and display volatile temperament. In addition, Brown (2016) [ 2 ] stated that individuals with low self-control exhibit six common characteristics. Firstly, those with low self-control tend to be less meticulous, prefer simple tasks that would require little commitment, are short-sighted, and exhibit a lack of self-determination. Secondly, these individuals are easily drawn to the more daring and exciting behaviour/activities. Thirdly, those with lower self-control are impulsive and tend to seek instant gratification, inclined to seize opportunities without considering the dangers/consequences of such behaviours. Fourthly, individuals with low self-control prefer simple activities over concentration-oriented activities such as a long conversation. Fifthly, those with low self-control tend to be less concerned about other individuals’ feelings and have a low tolerance for frustration and conflicts.

Findings from a broad array of studies have revealed that low self-control is a quintessential predictor of various maladaptive behaviours such as involvement in substance abuse, theft, property offending, and robbery among diverse samples of participants including parolees, jail inmates, and institutionalised delinquents [ 2 , 21 ]. According to Forrest et al., (2019) [ 21 ], low self-control increases the probability of an individual engaging in criminal activities when presented with suitable opportunities (mainly because they are unable to ignore or anticipate the potential long-term consequences of their actions). Furthermore, a plethora of studies has agreed that individuals with poor self-control are more likely to engage in a wider range of criminal behaviour such as computer-related crimes, associating with gangs, and participating in antisocial behaviour [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ].

Based on the social control theory, Gottfredson and Hirschi argue that females exhibit lower offending frequencies since they are more subjected to stricter enforcement and parental supervision compared to males [ 21 ]. The “parented more” variation that exists as a product of parental influence causes females to have a greater ability to self-regulate their behaviour whereas the less effective parenting of male children results in lower levels of self-control, consequently leading to involvement in criminal activities among males [ 21 ]. Similarly, Forrest et al. (2019) [ 21 ] and Mata et al. (2018) [ 22 ] found that gender and type of household (more patriarchal vs. less patriarchal) also influence an individual’s level of self-control. For instance, Mata et al. (2018) [ 22 ] note that females growing up in a patriarchal household along with a high level of parental control are less likely to have criminal aspirations.

A handful of studies have clarified that individuals with low self-control are less concerned with the long-term consequences of their behaviour and are more likely to engage in activities that provide them with immediate gratification, such as shoplifting and fraud-related behaviours [ 17 , 20 , 24 , 25 ]. In addition to the negative implications, many studies have indicated that low self-control and a high level of impulsivity is strongly related to socially undesirable behaviour such as smoking and risky drinking [ 25 ]. Furthermore, DeLisi et al. (2018) [ 16 ] found that low self-control and low moral values escalate intentions to steal and/or fight among individuals who regularly smoke marijuana, occasionally crack cocaine, and drink nearly every day.

3.3. Difficult Temperament

Human development is a complex phenomenon involving the joint influence of socioecological conditions and individual dispositional characteristics. As such, one’s temperament is defined as an individual characteristic which comprises a habitual mode of emotional response to stimulus [ 17 , 26 ]. Foulds et al. (2017) [ 26 ] stated that the temperament has been traditionally viewed as an emotional and behavioural characteristic of feelings and presumed to be more biologically rooted by maturation and heredity. Prior research has found that children who throw tantrums will usually react negatively towards people around them, have a low level of bonding with their parents (poor parent–children interaction), and develop various forms of psychopathological problems including antisocial behaviour [ 29 ]. According to DeLisi et al., (2018) [ 16 ], one’s temperament reflects the baseline differences in the central nervous systems that particularly involve components such as (i) emotionality and mood; (ii) variance in activity level; (iii) withdrawal behaviours; and (iv) self-regulation. In addition, empirical evidence shows that individuals with difficult temperaments experience mood disorders, anxiety disorders, major depression disorders, disruptive behaviour disorders, and drug abuse [ 17 ]. Furthermore, Foulds et al. (2017) [ 26 ] stated that temperamental deficits also contribute to crime/violence occurrence among adolescents.

Based on the theoretical framework, temperament was divided into nine major dimensions, namely adaptability to the environment; physical activity; approach/withdrawal in response to novelty; regularity of the child’s behaviour (rhythmicity); task persistence; quality of mood in terms of positive/negative feelings; threshold of responsiveness to stimulation; distractibility; and intensity of the reaction [ 30 ]. According to Dos Santos et al. (2020) [ 29 ], individuals with a low regularity of behaviour (rhythmicity) are more aggressive and delinquent compared to individuals with highly regular behaviour. Furthermore, the result of a study conducted by Nigg (2017) [ 28 ] disclosed that girls who scored higher for “adaptability to the environment”; “quality of mood in terms of positive/negative feelings (negative emotional reactivity and low positive affectivity)”; and “approach/withdrawal in response to novelty” (based on the temperament framework) are highly at-risk of engaging in antisocial behaviour.

Substantial evidence has emerged of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) (including various forms of neglect and abuse) and temperament factors being significantly associated with conduct problems (relating to poor emotional self-regulation) [ 17 , 27 , 29 , 32 ]. The neurobiological model suggests that an early childhood adverse environment and stress regulating systems (autonomic nervous system and hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis) increase susceptibility to severe antisocial behaviour, such as being associated with gang membership, gang delinquency, and gang activities [ 27 , 29 , 31 ]. Moreover, existing evidence has disclosed that difficult temperament, peer rejection, disciplinary problems, and antisocial peer selection upon school entry also contribute to gang membership among youths [ 32 ].

Researchers have argued that the home environment, socioeconomic status, and parenting style have a profound impact on child temperament [ 17 , 28 , 29 , 32 ]. For instance, Nigg (2017) [ 28 ] found that negative parenting practices (inconsistent discipline practice, harsh behaviour, and permissive parenting practice) contribute to behavioural disorders among children. Moreover, some researchers have also begun to acknowledge that parenting roles significantly influence children’s temperament [ 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 ]. Dos Santos et al. (2020) [ 31 ] stated that inconsistent discipline practice by parents and harsh behaviour may accelerate nonaggressive antisocial behaviour (e.g., stealing or frequent truancy) among school-aged adolescents [ 31 ]. Furthermore, Dos Santos et al. (2020) [ 29 ] also found that a child who constantly receives negative parental feedback for bold behaviour may experience low self-esteem and start to display uncooperative behaviour and incohesive functioning while growing up. In the same line of thought, a great deal of research has revealed that youth with difficult temperaments who grow up in socioeconomically disadvantaged households (marked by poverty, unemployment) and have been exposed to a toxic neighbourhood environment (easy access to criminal gangs, easy access to drugs or firearms) are greatly at-risk of engaging in delinquent behaviour and future criminality across urban and rural contexts [ 17 , 33 , 35 ].

4. Limitations and Direction for Future Research

This systematic review has several limitations. Firstly, information gathered regarding the link between individual personality traits and criminal behaviour was only obtained from the Sage, Web of Science, APA PsycNet, Wiley Online Library, and PubMed databases, and published from January 2016 to June 2021. Thus, there is a possibility that some research published by well-known leading scholars might have been excluded from this review process. Secondly, studies included in this review were limited to articles published in peer-reviewed journals alone without including other resources such as newspapers, letters to editors, or prison reports, thereby limiting the generalizability of the findings.

Despite the outlined limitations, future research should concentrate on other singular features of individual personality traits such as narcissism, impulsivity, attitude favouring aggression, and Machiavellianism which contribute to criminal behaviour in order to develop diversified treatment protocols based on personality traits. Additionally, future studies should also include mediator factors to allow the in-depth understanding of the process underlying the link between individual personality traits and criminal behaviour.

5. Conclusions

In sum, this review adds to the growing literature in the field of crime-related studies and improves our understanding regarding how personality traits escalate the risk of engaging in criminal activities. Substantial empirical research performed by Gatner et al., (2016) [ 7 ] and Nigel et al. (2018) [ 8 ] suggested that psychopathy is a robust predictor of criminal behaviour, mainly focusing on instrumental violence. Furthermore, many scholars agree that instrumental violence among psychopathic offenders is significantly determined by the affective traits of psychopathy. Additionally, the inputs obtained through systematic review show that the domain of low self-control predicts a varied range of criminal behaviour. Based on Gottfredson and Hirschi’s social control theory, low self-control contributes to the adoption of deviant values and leads to an individual engaging in various types of antisocial behaviour. Furthermore, a difficult temperament has also been suggested to be one of the key predictors of criminal behaviour, mainly due to the influence of socioecological conditions and individual dispositional characteristics such as sensation seeking, narcissism, Machiavellianism, and sociosexual orientation.

Although the aim of this study was rather academic, the conclusion reached from this finding clearly identifies some significant risk factors for engaging in criminal behaviour. Admittedly, not all individuals with at-risk personality traits are at high risk of becoming delinquents/adult offenders. Therefore, it is essential that the stakeholders and practitioners who work within the criminal justice system to diversify their methods of assessment to identify individuals who fall under the “early onset group”. Furthermore, a proper treatment regimen that matches the result of the rigorous assessment is equally important to promote preventative measures to reduce crime rates in the future.

Through this review, it is transparent that major personality traits such as psychopathy, low self-control, and a difficult temperament can be measured using various scales/inventory or secondary data. Thus, it is suggested that the interventions that aim to reduce the risk of criminality should begin during the early childhood stage since some of the existing evidence agrees that youths usually start engaging in criminal activities after reaching the age of 15 years old [ 34 , 35 , 36 ]. Moreover, the identification of personality traits regardless of gender is also crucial to initiate appropriate preventative strategies for vulnerable groups such as children, at-risk youths, and adolescents.

Author Contributions

Introduction, N.K.T. and F.I.; material and methods, M.R.K. and B.R.; psychopathic, N.K.T., F.I. and N.C.M.N.; low self-esteem, N.K.T., F.I.; difficult temperament, M.R.K. and B.R.; limitation, N.C.M.N.; conclusion, N.C.M.N.; writing—original draft preparation, N.K.T.; review and editing, F.I. and B.R., N.C.M.N.; funding acquisition, F.I. and M.R.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

The publication fee of this article was funded by the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan, Malaysia.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Handbook on Crime and Deviance pp 153–168 Cite as

Self-Control Theory: Research Issues

• Alex R. Piquero 4  
• First Online: 01 January 2009

9236 Accesses

9 Citations

Part of the book series: Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research ((HSSR))

In the annals of criminological thought, there have been a handful of theories that have been proffered that have altered and shaped the theoretical imagination of criminologists. The most recent of these theories is Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) general theory of crime. Their theory places particular importance on the personal, individual characteristic of (low) self-control, or the tendency to pursue immediate gratification at the expense of consideration for long-term consequences. To Gottfredson and Hirschi, the higher order construct of self-control is comprised of six characteristics, all of which coalesce within the individual with (low) self-control: impulsivity, preference for simple tasks, risk seeking, preference for physical as opposed to mental activities, self-centeredness, and a quick or volatile temper. When (low) self-control combines with the ready stock of available opportunities for crime, the general theory of crime anticipates that the probability of all types of antisocial and criminal activity will increase in a generally linear fashion, and this interaction should be a principal ingredient of crime over and above most other traditional correlates of crime, which the theorists claim are simply manifestations or selection effects associated with self-control.

• Deviant Behavior
• Corporate Crime
• Situational Crime Prevention
• Social Control Theory

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

To be sure, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime does allow for social control (and bonds in particular) to be important within the general theory of crime, but only insofar as social control influences self-control prior to ages 8/10; thereafter, social control is deemed to be largely irrelevant in influencing both self-control and criminal activity.

To be sure, several commentators (Akers, 1991 ) criticize Gottfredson and Hirschi’s insistence on the use of behavioral measures of self-control, primarily because of the notion that deviant behavior is used, in effect, to predict deviant behavior, and thus any such relationship is not surprising because the two measures are of the same underlying construct. This continues to be a source of contention in the literature, as critics, such as Akers, continue to believe that the use of deviant behavior to predict deviant behavior is tautological, while Gottfredson and Hirschi remain steadfast in their position that it is not.

To be sure, there are some accounts of limited specialization among certain types of offenders and/or among offenders within a narrow range of offense types (Steffensmeier & Ulmer, 2005 ), but this is generally the exception and not the rule.

Specifically, participants were presented with seven blank lines for which they were asked to develop a list of up to seven “bad things” (costs) that might occur if they engaged in the offending behavior depicted in each scenario, a method which follows Hirschi’s suggestion that the number of consequences to which an individual attends when making decisions to offend is related to that individual’s self-control. Also, because Hirschi suggests that self-control is also a function of the salience of the consequences that the individual considers, individuals were asked to provide data on the salience of potential inhibiting factors associated with criminal activity. After the listing of any relevant costs, participants were asked to indicate “ How important each one of these things would be when making your decision whether or not to (offense behavior) under the circumstances in the story.” These items were rated using a similar 0% (Not Important) to 100% (Very Important) scale. Given Hirschi’s statements about the relevance of both the number of costs attended to and their salience, the redefined self-control measure took the number of costs generated by the respondents and multiplied them by the average salience applied to these groups of costs (i.e., all costs) by the participants, thereby providing a measure that focuses on the inhibiting/costs factors (i.e., where higher scores are indicative of higher self-control) that can be quite broad (depending on the respondent’s nomination) and is contemporaneous because the data are obtained immediately after the individual is asked to rate their likelihood of engaging in the hypothetical criminal act.

It is important to note here the distinction between corporate and white-collar crime. Gottfredson and Hirschi do indeed deal with white-collar crime, but their conceptualization of white-collar crime is one that is reliant on the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting definition, i.e., fraud, embezzlement, forgery, etc. And while they have dealt with white-collar crime specifically in their own research, specialist researchers in the white-collar crime area have criticized the theorists for their misunderstanding and misapplication of the term. To be sure, there is a wide array of crime types under the white-collar and especially corporate umbrella including price fixing, environmental pollution, collusion, etc., and this line of research indicates that not only do these crime types exert a significant toll on victims and society, but their causes do not appear consistent with those found in the general theory.

Certainly not low self-control.

In a study that has not drawn much attention, Gottfredson and Hirschi ( 1995 ) do indicate that aside from strengthening parental socialization efforts in the first few years of life (which is the most direct and relevant aspect of their theory that allows for modifications of self-control), one public policy effort that can aid in crime prevention would focus on preventing teenage pregnancy, i.e., increasing condom use. The argument here is that increased condom use is likely to lead to fewer teenage pregnancies, which in turn will lead to fewer teenage parents who are ill-equipped to be effective socializing agents of their children.

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Barlow, H. D. (1991). Review: Review essay: Explaining crimes and analogous acts, or the unrestrained will grab at pleasure whenever they can. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82, 229–242.

Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J. A., & Visher, C. A. (Eds.). (1986). Criminal careers and career criminals. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Google Scholar  

Burton, V., Evans, T. D., Cullen, F. T., Olivares, K. M., & Dunaway, R. G. (1999). Age, self-control, and adults’ offending behaviors: A research note assessing a general theory of crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 45–54.

Burton, V. S., Jr., Cullen, F. T., Evans, T. D., Alarid, L. F., & Dunaway, R. G. (1998). Gender, self-control, and crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 123–147.

Cauffman, E., Steinberg, L., & Piquero, A. R. (2005). Psychological, neuropsychological, and physiological correlates of serious antisocial behavior. Criminology, 43, 133–176.

Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–605.

Cornish, D., & Clarke, R. V. (1987). Understanding crime displacement: An application of rational choice theory. Criminology, 25, 933–947.

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

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

Gottfredson, D. C. (2001). Schools and delinquency . New York: Cambridge University Press.

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

Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1995). National crime policy. Society, 32, 30–36.

Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (2003). Self-control and opportunity. In C. L. Britt & M. R. Gottfredson (Eds.), Advances in criminological theory: Volume 12. Control theories of crime and delinquency (pp. 5–20). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursik, R. J., Jr., & Arneklev, B. K. (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.

Hay, C., & Forrest, W. (2006). The development of self-control: Examining self-control theory’s stability thesis. Criminology, 44, 739–774.

Hirschi, T. (2004). Self-control and crime. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 537–552). New York: Guilford Press.

Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. R. (1993). Commentary: Testing the general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 47–54.

Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. R. (1995). Control theory and the life-course perspective. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, 4, 131–142.

Horney, J. D., Osgood, D. W., & Marshall, I. H. (1995). Criminal careers in the short-term: Intra-individual variability in crime and its relation to local life circumstances. American Sociological Review, 60, 655–73.

Junger, M. (1994). Accidents and crime. In T. Hirschi & M. Gottfredson (Eds.), The generality of deviance (pp. 81–112). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction

Keane, C., Maxim, P. S., & Teevan, J. J. (1993). Drinking and driving, self-control, and gender: Testing a general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 30–46.

Longshore, D. (1998). Self-control and criminal opportunity: A prospective test of the general theory of crime. Social Problems, 45, 102–113.

Longshore, D., Turner, S., & Stein, J. A. (1996). Self-control in a criminal sample: An examination of construct validity. Criminology, 34, 209–228.

MacDonald, J., Morral, A., & Piquero, A. R. (in press). Assessing the effects of social desirability on measures of self-control. Advances in criminological theory . New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Marcus, B. (2003). An empirical examination of the construct validity of two alternative self-control measures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 674–706.

Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244, 933–938.

Mitchell, O., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). The stability and resiliency of self-control in a sample of incarcerated offenders. Crime and Delinquency, 52, 432–449.

Muraven, M., Pogarsky, G., & Shmueli, D. (2006). Self-control depletion and the general theory of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22, 263–277.

Muraven, M., Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. (1998). Self-control as a limited resource: Regulatory depletion patterns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 774–789.

Piquero, A. R., & Bouffard, J. (2007). Something old, something new: A preliminary investigation of Hirschi’s redefined self-control. Justice Quarterly, 24, 1–27.

Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., & Blumstein, A. (2003). The criminal career paradigm. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 30, pp. 359–506). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Piquero, A. R., Gomez-Smith, Z., & Langton, L. (2004). Discerning unfairness where others may not: Low self-control and unfair sanction perceptions. Criminology, 42, 699–734.

Piquero, A. R., MacDonald, J., Dobrin, A., Daigle, L. E., & Cullen, F. T. (2005). Self-control, violent offending, and homicide victimization: Assessing the general theory of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21, 55–72.

Piquero, A. R., MacIntosh, R., & Hickman, M. (2000). Does self-control affect survey response? Applying exploratory, confirmatory, and item response theory analysis to Grasmick et al.’s self-control scale. Criminology, 38, 897–929.

Piquero, A. R., & Rosay, A. (1998). The reliability and validity of Grasmick et al.’s self-control scale: A comment on Longshore et al. Criminology, 36, 157–174.

Piquero, A. R., & Tibbetts, S. G. (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.

Piquero, N. L., Langton, L., & Schoepfer, A. (2008). Completely out of control or the desire to be in complete control? An examination of low self-control and the desire-for-control. Unpublished manuscript.

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

Pratt, T. C., Turner, M. G., & Piquero, A. R. (2004). Parental socialization and community context: A longitudinal analysis of the structural sources of low self-control. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41, 219–243.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schreck, C. J. (1999). Criminal victimization and low self-control: An extension and test of a general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 16, 633–654.

Simpson, S. S., & Piquero, N. L. (2002). Low self-control, organizational theory, and corporate crime. Law and Society Review, 36, 509–547.

Smith, T. (2004). Low self-control, staged opportunity, and subsequent fraudulent behavior. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 31, 542–563.

Steffensmeier, D., & Ulmer, J. T. (2005). Confessions of a dying thief: Understanding criminal careers and criminal enterprise . New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Aldine.

Taylor, C. (2001). The relationship between social and self-control: Tracing Hirschi’s criminological career. Theoretical Criminology, 5, 369–388.

Tittle, C. R., & Botchkovar, E. V. (2005). Self-control, criminal motivation and deterrence: An investigation using Russian respondents. Criminology, 43, 307–353.

Tittle, C. R., Ward, D. A., & Grasmick, H. G. (2003). Self-control and crime/deviance: Cognitive vs. behavioral measures. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19, 333–366.

Tittle, C. R., Ward, D. A., & Grasmick, H. G. (2004). Capacity for self-control and individuals’ interest in exercising self-control. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 20, 143–172.

Tremblay, R. E. (1995). Kindergarten behavioral patterns, parental practices and early adolescent antisocial behavior. In J. McCord (Ed.), Coercion and punishment in long term perspectives (pp. 139–153). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Tremblay, R. E., Vitaro, F., Bertrand, L., LeBlanc, M., Beauchesne, H., Bioleau, H., et al. (1992). Parent and child training to prevent early onset of delinquency: The Montreal Longitudinal Experimental Study. In J. McCord and R. E. Tremblay (Eds.). Preventing antisocial behavior: Interventions from birth through adolescence. New York: The Guilford Press.

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

Turner, M. G., Pratt, T. C., & Piquero, A. R. (2005). The school context as a source of self-control. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 329–339.

Vazsonyi, A. T., & Belliston, L. M. (2007). The family -> low self-control -> deviance: The general theory of crime across contexts. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 505–530.

Vazsonyi, A. T., & Crosswhite, J. M. (2004). A test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime in African American adolescents. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41, 407–432.

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

Wiebe, R. P. (2003). Reconciling psychopathy and low self-control. Justice Quarterly, 20, 297–336.

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

Chapter   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, 237–264.

Winfree, L. T., Taylor, T. J., He, N., & Esbensen, F.-A. (2006). Self-control and variability over time: Multivariate results using a 5-year, multisite panel of youths. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 253–286.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Maryland College Park, College Park, MD, USA

Alex R. Piquero

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, Washington Ave. 1400, Albany, 12222, USA

Marvin D. Krohn

School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, Washington Ave. 1400, Albany, 12222, U.S.A.

Alan J. Lizotte

Gina Penly Hall

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Piquero, A.R. (2009). Self-Control Theory: Research Issues. In: Krohn, M., Lizotte, A., Hall, G. (eds) Handbook on Crime and Deviance. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0245-0_8

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0245-0_8

Published : 26 June 2009

Publisher Name : Springer, New York, NY

Print ISBN : 978-1-4419-0244-3

Online ISBN : 978-1-4419-0245-0

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

What Is Self-Control Theory in Psychology?

It makes your mouth water and stimulates a memory of the last time something so delightful touched your tongue.

Yet, you choose to resist the urge to indulge in the impulse because you have a goal of cutting back on sugar.

You are also aiming to run a half-marathon before the end of the year. You try to force yourself out of bed in the morning to go for a run, yet the urge to savor your warm duvet wins instead.

We all face moments in life where high or low self-control comes into focus. As it’s been a topic of interest for decades, let’s explore the psychology of self-control.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Self-Compassion Exercises for free . These detailed, science-based exercises will not only help you increase the compassion and kindness you show yourself but will also give you the tools to help your clients, students, or employees show more compassion to themselves.

This Article Contains:

What is self-control theory a definition, 4 elements and examples of self-control theory, a look at the psychology.

• How Does the Theory Differ From the Control Theory of Self-Regulation?

A Look at Low Self-Control in the Theory

A take-home message.

The benefits of self-control are plentiful and essential for successful lives. Effective self-control has been linked to success in academics and occupations, as well as social wellness. Good mental and physical health, reduction in crime, and longer life spans are also linked to self-control.

Self-control serves as an executive function necessary for individual goal attainment. It is a cognitive process for self-regulating behavior in pursuit of personal goals. This advanced executive process allows us to inhibit ourselves from impulsive responses in behavior, favoring more appropriate, context-specific behavior.

The study of cybernetics laid the groundwork for exploration in self-control and communication (Wiener, 1948). The theory centers around the basic unit of the negative feedback loop. An environmental stimulus creates reactions, resulting in behaviors that are compared to a reference value that either leads to goal attainment, or without control, leads us away from it.

From cybernetics, the general systems theory was developed in sociology (Buckley, 1968) and created a framework around self-control. It is theorized that abstract goals are attained over longer periods than concrete goals. The goals are hierarchically integrated into behavioral decisions.

Behavioral decisions are implicitly categorized into the situation. Based on previous knowledge of the physical and social environment (Neisser, 1976), decisions are theorized to be made first for lower-level decisions that lead to more abstract goal attainment. A person’s focus determines which level of goal is achieved.

Making moral and ethical decisions that are considered to be more abstract, or higher level, requires self-control decisions that are integrated within the intricate maze of implicit choices that we make daily.

The theories have developed over time, and in recent years, research on self-control, morality, and human strength has been an intriguing area of focus. When we know more about how the self can alter its own state to achieve adaptive success, more flourishing lives can be forged.

Self-control theory has developed into a much broader concept. It has become more than the effortful inhibition of impulses than the previous models have described (Fujita, 2011). A deeper understanding of avoidance and other action-based cognitions among people who score high on self-control scales helps to connect the importance of self-regulation in all areas of life.

It explains in detail how a minor might end up engaged in delinquent behavior. It’s helpful to know when we might have a lack of self-control.

However, it is more impactful to know how to build self-control, as it is like a muscle. The more it is practiced, the stronger it becomes. Through the lens of juvenile delinquency, let’s take a look at how positive psychology interventions might be great examples of how to broaden and build from the theories in criminology.

One key element in self-control is deferring gratification . By utilizing the character strengths of savoring and self-regulation, self-control can improve. Teaching children how to appreciate and effectively distract themselves from gratification will serve them into adulthood. Adults who have not learned these strengths or how to harness them can also benefit from practice.

Another key element is the ability to be cautious . The character strength of prudence can be utilized here to improve self-control. Teaching children how to think, rather than merely reacting to an impulse, is where this character strength can be nurtured. With practice, better decisions can be made in real time.

Another key element is cognitive ability . Taking the time to explore options before being impulsive in decision making is a strong example of self-control. The character strengths of curiosity and love of learning are areas of growth in building self-control.

Another element of self-control is the ability to see alternative perspectives effectively . Social intelligence is a character strength that can be strengthened to improve self-control. Rather than reacting impulsively to another person’s behavior, someone with enhanced social intelligence can more easily respond with compassion and empathy.

Less violent outbursts will occur when someone can slow their response to react to a perceived threat appropriately.

Download 3 Free Self-Compassion Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will equip you to help others create a kinder and more nurturing relationship with themselves.

Download 3 Free Self-Compassion Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

Since the 1940s, psychologists have studied self-control theory.

Researchers have explored why humans make the decisions that they do, especially the ones that lead to incarceration. Our personal experiences are theorized to implicitly create new decision making based on those experiences. Let’s explore a little more about the psychology behind self-control.

The ability to control our impulses is based in the prefrontal cortex of the brain. This part of the human brain is rich with complex neural connections, allowing us to plan, exert willpower, and achieve our goals. In a world filled with competing stimuli, asserting self-control is a depleting process that reduces human vitality. In other words, it takes a lot of energy to inhibit our impulses effectively.

An interesting explanation of willpower was done at Columbia University (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). It described hot vs. cool systems as a framework for describing delayed gratification . The cool, cognitive “know” system is the emotionally neutral and strategic system and the seat of self-control. The hot, emotional “go” system is the highly emotionally driven system that typically undermines attempts at self-control.

At Carnegie Mellon, research on visceral vs. rational decision making (Loewenstein, 1996) shed light on how emotional response impacts self-control behavior. Visceral factors are described as intense cravings, such as hunger, thirst, desire, moods, and emotions, that are drive states for behavior. Rational decisions are made when overriding the visceral reactions.

Dual-system paradigms, like the two previous examples, were used to explain health behavior (Hofmann, Friese, & Wiers, 2008) further. Like any other decision, health behaviors can be either impulsive or reflective.

Self-control behavior utilizes a distal goal orientation in decision making in all scenarios, but it is of particular interest in health behavior. The hedonic pull of impulse can result in adverse outcomes in overall health. A deeper understanding of the ability to strengthen the reflective side of this paradigm allows for improved health behavior.

Another dual-system paradigm describes the paradox of behavior as seen through implicit vs. explicit cognitions (Stacy & Wiers, 2010). In this interesting research, it is explained that people participating in addictive behavior are quite aware of the pros and cons of the consequences of their choices. The more influential cognitions are those that are not taken through reflective means. Offered in this work are interventions to aid adolescents.

The “marshmallow test” is a famous, although sometimes highly debated, piece of research (Mischel & Grusec, 1967) into the innate ability to resist urges. The experiment measured children’s ability to resist eating marshmallows for a set time, in favor of receiving more marshmallows later. The results of this experiment were thought to predict academic performance and success in later life.

The secret to self control – Jonathan Bricker

The interpretation of this research was called into question by a study done at the University of Rochester (Kidd, Palmeri, & Aslin, 2013). The original experiment was altered, with broken promises becoming a factor in the decision making of the groups involved in the experiment. This new research showed the importance of environmental reliability on children’s decision-making capabilities.

A great deal of research on self-control has been done through a lens that predates positive psychology. The bulk of self-control theory has focused on the inhibition of impulses as control and the resulting behaviors from that inhibition. Criminology theories about the “lack” of elements that keep people out of trouble are abundant.

A new focus in psychology erupted in 1998. Since then, the theories around self-control have supported the notion that increasing self-control is possible. Besides, it is suggested that you cannot over-strengthen the control of the impulses of the self. Though even that view has been called into question when considering opportunities for spontaneity and the benefits of fun.

Theories on self-control have influenced policies in education, addiction treatment, positive criminology , and many other areas. Vast amounts of research have supported the notion that improvement in self-control improves humans. A longitudinal study (Moffitt et al., 2011) showed that childhood self-control abilities predicted adult success across various domains.

The Self-Control Scale (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone 2004) is used to assess people’s ability to control their impulses, alter their emotions and thoughts, halt undesired behavioral tendencies, and refrain from acting on them. Using this scale, an interesting study (Ent, Baumeister, & Tice, 2015) showed that trait self-control is linked more with avoiding temptation than resisting impulses.

This is an area of interest in self-control research showing that avoidance may be a more powerful predictor of behavior than willpower. Creating an environment where you don’t need to practice effortful impulse inhibition (Fujita, 2011), but rather avoid situations where that self-control will be tested, is highly beneficial. This type of decision making allows for distal goals to be in focus, rather than more immediate goals.

Ego depletion plays an essential role in the successful deployment of self-control strategies (Baumeister, 2014). People do not have an unlimited capacity to test themselves in the face of instant gratification . This process is cognitively taxing, and with consistent depletion throughout one’s day, self-control abilities become weakened.

Someone who can effectively multitask across goal domains creates a cognitive framework that allows for new associations to undesirable temptations (Fishbach, Friedman, & Kruglanski, 2003).

With practice, people can re-associate temptations that are at first considered desirable into negative cues. This practice allows distal goals to be reached more readily in the face of temptations that would otherwise derail progress toward those goals.

Behavior requires choice. Allowing for growth in the connection between the higher level or distal goal achievement and choice in the immediate decision-making needs is where self-control behavior improves. Slowing reactions and allowing self-reflection before decisions are made gives room for strengths to build.

How Does the Theory Differ from the Control Theory of Self-Regulation?

Self-regulation is reducing the intensity and/or the frequency of those impulses by self-managing stress and negative environmental impact. Self-control is possible because of practices in self-regulation.

Theories of self-control can be described within the theory of self-regulation theory. The process of self-regulation creates various challenges. Self-control is one of them.

For self-regulation to be successful, the following must occur:

• A person must decide which goals to pursue.
• A plan for the pursuit of that goal must be created.
• That plan must then be implemented.
• Decisions to continue or abandon that goal pursuit must be decided with success or failure feedback.

In the brain, the limbic system is in charge of the impulses to which human beings react. When this system is in action, the prefrontal cortex is shut down. Logical and rational thought are carried out by the prefrontal cortex. These parts of the brain do not work simultaneously. Reducing stress allows the prefrontal cortex to get into action.

Self-regulation through increased abilities in various cognitive capacities allows self-control behaviors to take more routes to goal achievement than impulse inhibition.

When stress is allowed to continue, our limbic system takes over, inducing more impulsive responses. When stress is managed correctly, it opens the door for reflective and higher level goal attainment.

Self-regulation theory proposes the notion that we do not have a constant supply of resources to inhibit strong impulses. Throughout any given day, these resources are depleted through decision making and various forms of stress.

Improvements in conscious self-regulation (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007) improve our ability to recognize and alter reactions in self-control.

The role of self-determination theory within the realm of self-regulation is important to note. Personal decisions in behavior change are vital to improvement. Autonomous self-regulation of behavior does not deplete vitality as readily as the use of self-controlling regulation (Ryan & Deci, 2008).

17 Exercises To Foster Self-Acceptance and Compassion

Help your clients develop a kinder, more accepting relationship with themselves using these 17 Self-Compassion Exercises [PDF] that promote self-care and self-compassion.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

Low self-control can result in undesirable behaviors. Addiction, poor academic performance, deviant sexual behavior, obesity, and criminal activity are a few of the well-documented areas where low self-control is evident. Low self-control leads to actions that put people at risk.

In one theory (Nofziger, 2008), low self-control is said to come from ineffective child rearing. When a parent fails to recognize and correct deviant behavior, low self-control is likely to predict behavior that will become problematic into adulthood. Parents who lack self-control are less likely to identify and correct undesirable behavior in their children.

This theory can prove to be somewhat problematic, however, when viewing self-control theory in adulthood. As self-regulation can grow like a muscle, so too can self-control, improving overall behavior. It won’t matter at age 30, how your mom corrected or failed to correct your behavior when you were young. Adults have the responsibility to halt the cycle of impulsive behavior, or it will continue.

Raising levels of self-control in adults will, in turn, raise levels of self-control in children. Adults who hold themselves accountable for their behavior show children parameters in which to begin to thrive. This is an enormous area of growth in psychology for education, families, and any space where children can learn improvements in the elements that may lead to dangerous and high-risk behaviors.

Delaying the gratification of consuming that delicious piece of chocolate is not easy for most. Pleasurable experiences are cued in our brains to repeat themselves in the face of decadence. Self-control overrides the impulse to devour that chocolate in favor of higher level goals.

The alarming levels of obesity, addiction, and violence in the world tell us that intentional improvement in self-control practices is warranted. With continuing research in the field, more and more information will become available to learn how to improve self-control behavior. The more successful people become at reducing impulsive behavior, the better their lives and the lives around them can become.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Self Compassion Exercises for free .

• Baumeister, R. F. (2014). Self-regulation, ego depletion, and inhibition.  Neuropsychologia ,  65 , 313–319.
• Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Self-regulation, ego depletion, and motivation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass , 1 (1), 115–128.
• Buckley, W. F. (1967).  Sociology and modern systems theory.  Prentice Hall.
• Ent, M. R., Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (2015). Trait self-control and the avoidance of temptation. Personality and Individual Differences, 74 , 12–15.
• Fishbach, A., Friedman, R. S., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2003). Leading us not into temptation: Momentary allurements elicit overriding goal activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 84 (2), 296–309.
• Fujita, K. (2011). On conceptualizing self-control as more than the effortful inhibition of impulses. Personality and Social Psychology Review , 15 (4), 352–366.
• Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. University of California Press.
• Hofmann, W., Friese, M., & Wiers, R. W. (2008). Impulsive versus reflective influences on health behavior: A theoretical framework and empirical review. Health Psychology Review, 2 (2), 111–137.
• Kidd, C., Palmeri, H., & Aslin, R. N. (2013). Rational snacking: Young children’s decision-making on the marshmallow task is moderated by beliefs about environmental reliability. Cognition, 126(1) , 109–114.
• Loewenstein (1996). Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 65 (3), 272–292.
• Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review , 106 (1), 3–19.
• Mischel, W., & Grusec, J. (1967). Waiting for rewards and punishments: Effects of time and probability on choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 5 (1), 24–31.
• Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., … Caspi, A. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety.  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America ,  108 (7), 2693–2698.
• Neisser, U. (1976).  Cognition and reality: Principles and implications of cognitive psychology.  Freeman.
• Nofziger, S. (2008). The “cause” of low self-control. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 45 (2), 191–224.
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008). From ego depletion to vitality: Theory and findings concerning the facilitation of energy available to the self. Social and Personality Psychology Compass , 2 (2), 702–717.
• Stacy, A. W., & Wiers, R. W. (2010). Implicit cognition and addiction: A tool for explaining paradoxical behavior. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6 (1), 551–575.
• Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success.  Journal of Personality ,  72 (2), 271–324.
• Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics or control and communication in the animal and the machine. MIT Press

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

Dear Nicole,

I had presentation on work of Greatest Cyberneticians of all time and I presented how orgsnisms function (including nervous system) mostly from the view of Cybernetics, biology, physiology and neurophysiology.

If somebody is interested to see how organisms function including where roots of self-regulation origine I invite you to see presentation on Youtube link:

https://youtu.be/AL9XbEbynG8

Comments, critics, thoughts are wellcome.

Best to all of you.

Dear Kelly Miller,

it’s nice attempt to present Cybernetics Control Theory to public, but it would be also nice if you would stick to origins of “Control Theory” in psychology. Sorry to say, but you used quite not succesfull variation of “Self-control” in psychology although you pointed out some good explanations how organisms (including human beings) could function, But nothing is so good that it couldn’t be better.

I think that you should mention Charles Carver and Scheier the real founders of “self-regulation” theory in psychology (1981). But if you would mention Carver (Scheier) you shouldn’t forget on W.T. Powers the teacher to Carver (Scheier) and so on backward into the past to get to Winner (1948). Your line of thinking does not represent the real development of “Self-control” in Psychology and you surely didn’t gave the right description of “Self-control” in Psychology.

I dont’ understand who gave you the idea that “Since the 1940s, psychologists have studied self-control theory.” Could you provide some names or literature? As far as I know everything about “Self-control” or “purposefull behavior” started in 1943. But non of authors was psychologist. The story about Control theory and organisms continued through 1950-60 but again non of the authors could be termed as psychologist. The begginner of “goal seeking” theory or we could say “self-regulation” of organisms was psychiatrist that continued through works of engineer and biologist Biologist is still alive.

My proposal is that you should re-write the article and start with real roots of “Self-Control” or “Self-regulation” of “purposefull behvaior” and of course with real literature that would describe how organisms function (including human beings). This could include also how inside organism nervous system function.

Thank you for your thoughts here. We’re pleased that our post inspired such an in-depth response, and we sincerely appreciate your thoughtful ideas — we’ll keep these in mind as we continue to update and improve our posts. Unfortunately, in the interest of keeping our comment section easy for our readers to navigate, we could not publish your full comment. But thank you, and we welcome more succinct contributions in the future.

– Nicole | Community Manager

Well I’m surprised Nicole. I wasn’t expecting so cultivated answer. Please accept my apology that I’m answering you so late.

You must be very kind and nice person, Your acceptance of critics show at least to me, that you must be also highly intelligent person. I’m honered to speak with you.

Thank you for your invitation to participate on your page. I’ll try to integrate into your conversations.

Beside what I wrote, I think that improvement of human knowledge about how organisms (including human beings) function could be found on “Principia Cybernetica (Heylighen) and Cybernetic Society. These are specialized pages for Cybernetics.

Beside Baumeister (whom I saw in your literataure) I would warmly recommend you reading Charles Carver and Scheier. Carver was somehow closely connected to Baumeister. This is I think the most important what I know from the field of Psychology about self-regulation.

Self-regulation in psychology with no doubt derive from Cybernetics. And the link of mentioned psychologists to Cybernetics is W.T. Powers. He is by my oppinion father of “self-regulaton” or “self-control” in psychology. W.T. Powers strongly based his theory on W. Ross Ashby (early Cybernetician).

Ashby put concepts of Cybernetics together back in 1940. He was as I already mentioned psychiatrist. In 1952 he wrote a book “Design for a Brain”. The book is by my oppinion the beginning of new understanding how organisms function and how nervous system function as a part of organism.

I’ll be glad to hear more comments from you. And if you have any questions, I’ll be glad to answer.

Thank you for your kindness.

Interesting views shared. I am keen to explore the dimensions of spirituality on building self control. But overall I like the dichotomy of self control and self regulation and in relation to timing of choice and decision making. And how self regulation can ultimately can help build high self control.

This article was really informative and fulfilling my search in the field of self control theory. I appreciate the way you have compared both theories; self-control and self-regulation.

Very relevant and great information. The information could be categorized a little to make it easy to read and search for specific things. Found the article very helpful.

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

Reparenting: Seeking Healing for Your Inner Child

In our work as therapists, we often encounter the undeniable truth: we never truly outgrow our inner child. A youthful part within us persists, sometimes [...]

30 Best Self-Exploration Questions, Journal Prompts, & Tools

Life is constantly in flux – our environment and ‘self’ change continually. Self-exploration helps us make sense of who we are, where we are, and [...]

Inner Child Healing: 35 Practical Tools for Growing Beyond Your Past

Many clients enter therapy because they have relationship patterns that they are tired of repeating (Jackman, 2020). They may arrive at the first session asking, [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (48)
• Coaching & Application (57)
• Compassion (26)
• Counseling (51)
• Emotional Intelligence (24)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (21)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (26)
• Meditation (20)
• Mindfulness (45)
• Motivation & Goals (45)
• Optimism & Mindset (34)
• Positive CBT (28)
• Positive Communication (20)
• Positive Education (47)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (17)
• Positive Parenting (2)
• Positive Psychology (33)
• Positive Workplace (37)
• Productivity (16)
• Relationships (47)
• Resilience & Coping (35)
• Self Awareness (21)
• Self Esteem (37)
• Strengths & Virtues (30)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (34)
• Theory & Books (46)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (64)