The General Theory of Crime: An Examination of Self-Control Theory

In a world where crime rates fluctuate and societal norms constantly evolve, understanding the root causes of criminal behavior remains an urgent priority. The General Theory of Crime, introduced by Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi in 1990, presents a compelling narrative that centers on self-control as the pivotal factor influencing not just criminal acts but also a spectrum of analogous behaviors—from substance abuse to reckless driving. By delving into how low self-control is shaped during early childhood through parenting practices, this theory invites readers to reconsider what drives individuals toward deviance and highlights the importance of fostering self-discipline from an early age.

As we navigate through the intricacies of human behavior, it becomes clear that crime does not simply arise from societal pressures or economic hardship; rather, it often stems from within—the very fabric of one’s upbringing. This examination offers fresh insights into effective prevention strategies that can significantly alter life trajectories for at-risk youth. Join us as we explore the core tenets of Self-Control Theory, its empirical support and criticisms, and its profound implications for shaping policies aimed at reducing crime in our communities. Prepare to engage with thought-provoking ideas that challenge conventional perceptions while illuminating pathways toward a safer society for all.

Introduction: Understanding Crime Through the Lens of Self-Control

Crime and deviant behavior have been studied extensively by criminologists, sociologists, and psychologists for decades, each discipline seeking to uncover the underlying causes and predictors of criminal activity. Among the many theories that attempt to explain why individuals engage in crime, the General Theory of Crime, also known as Self-Control Theory, stands out for its simplicity and broad applicability. Developed by Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi in 1990, this theory posits that low self-control—established early in life—is a primary predictor of criminality as well as a range of analogous behaviors such as substance abuse and reckless driving (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). As we delve into this article, we will explore the foundational concepts behind Self-Control Theory while examining how it has shaped our understanding of crime across different contexts.

The Core Premise of Self-Control Theory

The General Theory of Crime (GTC) asserts that the primary cause of all crime and analogous deviant behaviors is low self-control. This theory defines crime as “acts of force or fraud undertaken in pursuit of self-interest” (Akers, 2005). Individuals with low self-control are characterized by a tendency to respond to immediate, tangible stimuli, having a “here and now” orientation (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). They are often impulsive, insensitive, physical (as opposed to mental), risk-taking, shortsighted, and nonverbal. Such individuals prefer simple, physical tasks and do not carefully consider the long-term consequences of their actions, instead focusing on immediate gratification (Farrington & Welsh, 2007). This theory also extends beyond legally defined crimes to explain a wide array of “analogous” deviant behaviors, such as accidents, smoking, excessive drinking, illicit sex, and drug use, all seen as manifestations of low self-control (Akers, 2000. p. 112).

Developmental Explanation for Low Self-Control

A core tenet of the GTC is that low self-control is largely established early in life, typically by the age of 8 to 10 years, and remains relatively stable thereafter throughout the life course (Gottfredson, 2000, p. 47). This “criminality” or “criminal propensity” is primarily seen as a product of ineffective parenting or child-rearing practices. For a child to develop self-control, parents must monitor their child’s behavior, recognize deviant behavior, and consistently punish it. The theory posits that self-control is “unlikely in the absence of effort, intended or unintended, to create it” (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Therefore, the absence of proper nurturance, discipline, or training during these formative years leads to low self-control, rather than it being an innate drive to deviance that needs to be explained.

Criminal Opportunity

While low self-control is the necessary individual characteristic, the theory emphasizes that crime only occurs when individuals with low self-control are presented with a criminal opportunity (Grasmick et al., 1993). The GTC is considered a general theory because it aims to explain “all crime, at all times, and, for that matter, many forms of behavior that are not sanctioned by the state”. It posits that differences in self-control account for variations in crime rates across ages, genders, racial groups, and cultures (Akers, 2000, p. 112). The theory’s parsimonious nature—explaining a wide scope of events with a single core concept—is seen as a strength, differentiating it from more complex, multiple-factor explanations. It shifts the focus from “what causes crime?” to “what prevents people from committing crime?” by assuming that the motivation for deviance is constant across individuals, and it is the level of control that varies (Pratt & Cullen, 2000).

Development and Measurement of Self-Control

According to Hirschi and Gottfredson (1990), individuals are not born with self-control; rather, low self-control is considered the “natural state” of humans, and it must be actively taught (Agnews, 2011, p. 153). This crucial development primarily occurs through effective child-rearing practices within the family during early childhood. For self-control to develop, parents must monitor their child’s behavior, recognize deviant behavior when it occurs, and consistently punish it. Parental affection and investment in the child are seen as pivotal for activating this system of discipline and nurturing.

The theory emphasizes that self-control is largely established and stable by roughly 8 to 10 years of age. While parents are considered the primary socializing agents, other institutions like schools contribute, though it is difficult for later institutions to compensate for early deficiencies. The intergenerational transmission of delinquency is also consistent with the theory, as parents with low self-control themselves are less likely to effectively socialize their children (Gottfredson, 2000). However, while the trait is considered relatively stable, it is not immutable; subsequent research has explored the possibility of increasing self-control through targeted interventions (Piquero et aL., 2010).

Characteristics of Low-Self-Control

Individuals characterized by low self-control tend to be impulsive, insensitive, physical (as opposed to mental), risk-taking, shortsighted, and nonverbal. They are prone to seeking immediate gratification and often fail to consider the long-term, negative consequences of their actions. This stable trait is theorized to explain a wide variety of “analogous” deviant behaviors beyond just crime, such as accidents, smoking, sexual promiscuity, and alcohol abuse (Akers, 2000, p. 112).

The theory suggests that school failure, problematic relationships, and unemployment are not independent causes of crime but rather are consequences of low self-control itself, as individuals with low self-control are less interested in conventional pursuits and gravitate towards environments with fewer constraints (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1990, p. 111). Crime and delinquency are understood to occur when individuals with this underlying low self-control characteristic encounter a criminal opportunity.

Measurement of Self-Control

Measuring self-control has presented certain challenges. Early studies relied heavily on behavioral indicators (e.g., frequency of criminal acts), but later research developed psychometric scales to capture the underlying personality trait (Grasmick et al., 1993). The Grasmick et al. (1993) self-control scale is widely used and assesses factors such as impulsivity, preference for simple tasks, risk-seeking, physical activities, self-centeredness, and temper.

Measurement of self-control in research often involves composite measures derived from reports by various informants, including researcher-observers, teachers, parents, and self-reports, taken across multiple ages (e.g., 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 years). Specific questionnaire items are designed to tap into the components of self-control, such as impulsivity (e.g., “I often act on the spur of the moment without stopping to think”) and risk-taking (e.g., “Sometimes I will take a risk just for the fun of it”) (Agnew, 2011, p. 100).

Challenges with Accurate Measurements of Self-Control

However, a significant challenge in testing the theory has been the problem of tautology, where self-control is sometimes defined and measured in ways that are not independent of the criminal behavior it is meant to explain, leading to circular reasoning. Researchers have actively worked to develop measures of self-control that are separate from criminal propensity to overcome this issue (Akers, 2000, p. 112). While Gottfredson and Hirschi emphasized self-control’s stability over the life course, research suggests it is not perfectly fixed. It can experience increases or decreases. These changes are influenced by ongoing parental practices, school factors, and peer associations. Alternative perspectives also propose concepts like “executive capability” as a distinct individual trait influencing the ability to exercise self-control, distinguishing it from self-control as a situational process (Akers, 2005).

Empirical Evidence Supporting the Theory

Substantial empirical research has indeed investigated the claims of the General Theory of Crime (GTC), with numerous studies finding support for its core propositions. Pratt and Cullen (2000), in a comprehensive meta-analysis, found that low self-control is one of the strongest known correlates of criminal and analogous behaviors. Their review integrated findings from 21 empirical studies. It encompassed nearly 50,000 individual cases. The analysis consistently found significant associations between self-control and various forms of deviance.

They also found that the effect size of self-control was not significantly affected by the type of measurement used (attitudinal versus behavioral scales) or by whether other competing criminological theories were controlled for. This suggests the robustness of self-control’s predictive power. The GTC explains this versatility by positing that low self-control manifests in a wide variety of “analogous” deviant behaviors beyond crime itself, such as smoking, drinking, drug use, illicit sex, and accidents, with no credible evidence of specialization among offenders (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990).

Longitudinal Research

Longitudinal research has also bolstered the theory’s credibility. As you mentioned, studies like that reported in Moffitt et al. (2011) from the Dunedin study have shown that childhood self-control predicts physical health, substance dependence, personal finances, and criminal offending outcomes in adulthood, with these effects being disentangled from intelligence, social class, and adolescent mistakes (Moffitt et al., 2011). This aligns with the GTC’s premise that low self-control is largely established early in life, typically by age 8-10, and remains relatively stable (or “enduring”) throughout the life course, influencing an individual’s propensity to engage in crime and analogous behaviors. The stability of this trait is often considered a “criminal propensity” or “criminality”. The theory explains that crime occurs when individuals with low self-control encounter a criminal opportunity (Ward, 2014).

Child Rearing and Self-Control

The development of self-control is primarily attributed to effective child-rearing practices within the family. Parents must monitor their child’s behavior. They should recognize deviant acts and consistently punish them. Consequently, the lack of such “nurturance, discipline, or training” leads to low self-control, suggesting a “negative” cause rather than positive forces driving deviance. Indeed, research consistently shows that parental criminality is a striking and consistent characteristic in the homes of delinquents, supporting the idea that parents lacking self-control are less likely to socialize their children effectively (Akers, 2005). While Gottfredson and Hirschi emphasized the stability of self-control after early childhood, some research suggests it is not perfectly fixed and can experience increases or decreases influenced by ongoing parental practices, school factors, and peer associations.

However, a notable criticism of the GTC has been the problem of tautology in measurement, where self-control is sometimes defined or measured by the very behaviors it is meant to explain. Researchers have worked to overcome this by developing measures of self-control independent of criminal behavior (Pratt & Cullen, 2000). Despite some conflicting findings, such as Pratt and Cullen’s observation that the effect of low self-control was weaker in longitudinal studies and that social learning variables still significantly predicted crime even when self-control was controlled, the overall empirical literature provides substantial support for self-control as a general cause of crime and problem behaviors.

Criticisms and Limitations

Despite its influence, the Self-Control Theory is not without its detractors. One major criticism concerns its assertion that self-control is the sole or primary cause of crime, to the exclusion of other important factors. Critics argue that social, environmental, economic, and situational factors can also play substantial roles in criminal behavior (Akers, 2000). Moreover, some research has found that self-control interacts with other variables, such as peer influence and opportunity, in predicting crime (Wikström & Treiber, 2007).

Another frequently cited limitation is the assumption that self-control is fixed after early childhood. Some scholars argue that self-control can continue to develop throughout adolescence and adulthood, influenced by life events, social bonds, and interventions (Hay & Forrest, 2006). This dynamic view suggests that policies and programs aimed at crime prevention can be effective even after early childhood. This notion challenges a strict interpretation of the Self-Control Theory.

Further, the theory has been critiqued for its universal application across different types of crime and cultures. For instance, some crimes, such as white-collar offenses, may require planning, patience, and self-control, thus contradicting the idea that all crime is rooted in impulsivity and risk-seeking (Benson & Simpson, 2009).

Biased and Partial Interpretations

As with many theories, both the support and criticism often stem from selective and biased understandings of the concept. In my experience presenting research on various psychological theories for over ten years, I’ve noticed that many responses seem to indicate that the commenter hasn’t actually read the article but is instead reacting based on preconceived notions related to its title.

This theory is especially susceptible to biased perspectives. Some individuals endorse or dismiss the theory based on the idea that a deficiency in self-control is a key factor in criminal behavior. Supporters might leverage the foundational concept of self-control as a rationale for severe punishment of offenders. Conversely, proponents of critical criminology theories may promptly dismiss any framework that implies personal accountability.

Hirschi and Gottfredson’s general theory of crime, like many other theories, is far more intricate than simply pinpointing a single factor as a cause for behavior. It does not categorize individuals as ‘good’ (those with self-control) or ‘bad’ (those lacking self-control). Instead, the theory aims to explore the reasons behind failures in self-control (inadequate or misguided parenting practices) and the specific environments (criminal opportunity) where inadequate self-control may lead to criminal conduct. Overlooking this broader perspective in any critique of this theory shows a significant lack of thoughtful consideration. It neglects the material and evidence put forth by Hirschi and Gottfredson.

The Policy and Prevention Implications

If low self-control is indeed a major cause of crime, then early childhood interventions aimed at fostering self-control could have far-reaching effects on crime rates. Programs that support effective parenting, supervision, and discipline, as well as early childhood education, have been shown to enhance self-control and reduce later problem behaviors (Reynolds et al., 2001). Public health approaches that address risk and protective factors during early childhood can therefore serve as important crime prevention strategies.

However, recognizing the importance of broader social factors means that a multifaceted approach to crime prevention is warranted. Interventions that address peer environments, neighborhood safety, educational opportunities, and economic disadvantage, in addition to self-control, are likely to yield the best results (Farrington & Welsh, 2007).

Associated Concepts

• Rational Choice Theory: This theory is a framework. It suggests individuals make decisions by weighing the costs and benefits of different options. It assumes that people are rational actors who seek to maximize their self-interest.
• Self-Regulation: This refers to the ability to manage and control one’s thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. These skills help in achieving personal goals. They also enable adaptation to various situations. It involves processes such as impulse control, emotional regulation, and the ability to focus attention, make decisions, and persist in tasks.
• Social Bond Theory: This theory was developed by Travis Hirschi. It explores why most individuals refrain from criminal activity. This is done by emphasizing the importance of social bonds. It asserts that strong attachments, commitments, involvement, and beliefs deter deviance, while weakened connections may lead to delinquent behavior.
• Locus of Control: This refers to refers to the extent to which individuals believe they can control events affecting them. People with an internal locus of control believe they can influence outcomes through their own actions, while those with an external locus of control attribute outcomes to external factors beyond their control.
• Behavioral Control Theory: This theory provides a framework that explains how individuals regulate their behavior to achieve specific goals. It’s based on the idea that people have internal mechanisms that monitor and adjust their actions to maintain a desired state.
• Executive Functions: These are a set of cognitive processes that are necessary for the cognitive control of behavior, including working memory, flexible thinking, and inhibitory control.
• Theory of Reasoned Action: A social psychology theory that explains the relationship between attitudes and behaviors. According to this theory, an individual’s behavior is determined by their intention to perform the behavior, which is influenced by their attitude toward the behavior and subjective norms.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

In exploring the General Theory of Crime, or Self-Control Theory, we have uncovered a compelling narrative that connects individual behavior with broader societal influences. Markedly, this theory suggests that low self-control is not merely an inherent trait. It is a characteristic shaped significantly by early childhood experiences and parenting practices. By understanding that impulsivity and risk-seeking behaviors manifest from ineffective parental supervision and discipline, we can appreciate the crucial role of nurturing in developing self-regulation skills among children. Fostering self-control during these formative years is crucial. It serves as a foundational strategy for preventing both crime and analogous deviant behaviors.

Ultimately, while Self-Control Theory provides valuable insights into the psychological underpinnings of criminality, it also prompts us to consider more holistic approaches to crime prevention. The interplay between individual traits like self-control and external factors—such as peer influence and socio-economic conditions—underscores the necessity for comprehensive interventions that address both personal development and social contexts. We integrate strategies aimed at enhancing self-discipline with efforts to improve community resources. We also focus on educational opportunities and supportive environments. These actions pave the way toward effective solutions for reducing crime rates. In this light, our commitment to building safer communities becomes not only a responsibility but an opportunity for transformative change rooted in knowledge—a reflection of the very passion driving “Psychology Fanatic.”

Last Update: August 3, 2025