210 likes | 233 Views
Control Theories. Informal Social Control. Assumptions about human nature. Humans are hedonistic, self-serving beings We are “inclined” towards deviance from birth “natural motivation” no “positive” motivation required “variation in motivations toward deviance”
E N D
Control Theories Informal Social Control
Assumptions about human nature • Humans are hedonistic, self-serving beings • We are “inclined” towards deviance from birth • “natural motivation” • no “positive” motivation required • “variation in motivations toward deviance” • Compare to Strain or Social Learning Theory • Sutherland: All crime is learned, not invented • Strain: Crime result of frustration/anger
If we are inclined toward deviance... • Key Question: Why aren’t most of us deviant? • Hirschi: “There is much evidence that we would be if we dared.” • Answer: Informal Social Control • Deterrence Answer: Fear of Formal Punishment
Are control theories “different?” • Akers • They don’t try to explain “non-crime” or conformity • Different sides of the same coin • Control Theorists • Completely different assumptions about human nature and “motivation” towards crime
Ivan Nye (1958) • Identified 3 types of informal control 1. Direct Controls 2. Indirect Controls 3. Internal Controls
Walter Reckless: Containment Theory Inner (Good self concept) Containment • Outer Containment • parents/school • supervision • Pushes and Pulls • poverty, anger,delinquent • subculture DELINQUENCY OUT HERE !!!!!!
Enter Travis Hirschi Social Bond Theory
The “BOOK” • Causes of Delinquency (1969) • Was an attack on other theories (strain and social learning) as much as a statement of his theory • Self-report data (CA high schools) • Measures from “competing theories” • This book was the first of its kind!
Hirschi’s Criticisms of Past Theory 1. A “pure” control theory needs no or external “motivation” to explain crime. • Exclude “pushes and pulls” from control theory • Other theories present an “over-socialized” human 2. Internal control is too “subjective” and nearly impossible to measure. • Exclude “conscience, self-concept, or self-control” • Subsumed under “Attachment”
Social Bond Theory • “Bond” to society emphasizes Indirect Control • Direct controls (punishment, reinforcement) less important because delinquency occurs when out of parents’ reach (adolescence). • Elements of the “bond” • Attachment • Commitment (Elements of the social bond • Involvement are all related to each other) • Belief
Attachment • The “emotional bond” • Sensitivity towards others (especially parents) • Measured as • Identification with and emulation of parents • Concern with teacher’s opinion of oneself
Commitment • The “rational bond” • One’s “stake in conformity” • Social Capital • Measures: • academic achievement • grades • test scores • educational aspirations
Involvement • “Idle hands are the devil’s workshop” • Involvement in conventional activity • Simply less time for deviance • Measures: • time playing basketball, baby-sitting, doing homework….
Belief • Belief in the validity of the law • Hold values consistent with the law • Measures • Neutralizations (from Sykes/Matza) • Belief in the value of education • Respect for police and the law
How can “neutralizations” support both social learning theory and control theory? Neutralizations as a “Pirate” variable 1. Sutherland/Akers: “definitions” that motivate delinquency 2. Hirschi: indicator of weak moral beliefs 3. Bandura: disengagement of cognitive self-evaluation (can be negative reinforcement)
Research on Bonds • Hirschi’s own research supportive • But, couldn’t explain delinquent peers • So, “birds of a feather” explanation • Subsequent research • Attachment, commitment, beliefs are related • Relationships are moderate to weak • Causal ordering?
Delinquent Peers and Parents • Hirschi: Any bonding insulates a person from delinquency • Even if the person you bond to is delinquent • Relationships among delinquents as “cold and brittle” • Akers: Bonding to delinquent persons increases delinquency • Who’s right? AKERS
Gerald Patterson • Psychologist • Oregon Social Learning Center (OSLC) • 1982 “Coercion Theory” • 1992 “Social- Interactional Approach” • Very Applied: Work with families with young, antisocial boys.
Patterson’s Social-Interactional Model Family Management Outcomes Context • Family Structure • SES • Difficult Infant • High Crime • Neighborhood • Divorce/Stress • Unskilled • Grandparents • Parental Efficacy • Monitor • Recognize • Discipline • R+ • Problem Solving (pro)/antisocial behavior Social (in)competence
Later in the Theory • Antisocial Child Affects the Environment • Peer Rejection • Poor Academic Performance • Parental Rejection • This leads to further problems • Deviant Peer Group • School Failure • Delinquency
Is Patterson a “control” theorist, or a “social learning” theorist? • Social Learning • Oregon social learning center • Emphasizes “reinforcement” of prosocial behavior • Later in theory emphasizes “delinquent peers” • Parents learn “parenting skills” from their parents • Control Theorist • “Direct control” • Assumption about children?