Developing Criminal Propensity? Modeling Developmental Effects of the Code of the Street and Low Self-Control Over Time

• Author: Jacob H. Erickson,Andy Hochstetler,Kyle A. Burgason
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/15412040221096632
• Published date: 01 October 2022
• Date: 01 October 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

2022, Vol. 20(4) 329–352

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/15412040221096632

journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj

Developing Criminal

Propensity? Modeling

Developmental Effects of the

Code of the Street and Low

Self-Control Over Time

Jacob H. Erickson

1

, Andy Hochstetler

2

, and Kyle A. Burgason

2

Abstract

The code of the street and low self-control are prominent theories of crime. However, there is no

research that examines if these criminogenic dispositions inform each other over time. We utilize

the G.R.E.A.T. data to analyze the development of street code adherence and low selfcontrol

longitudinally. We find a portion of the stability associated with street code adherence and low

self-control to be a product of measurement, as evidenced by correlating error terms across

waves. Additionally, we find low self-control to be related to increases in street code adherence

especially in later waves and, to a lesser extent, we show effects of street code adherence on

subsequent levels of low selfcontrol. We also discuss results from analyses split by race, gender,

and neighborhood type. We discuss the theoretical implications of our findings and argu e for the

development and utility of a broad measure of criminal propensity.

Keywords

code of the street, low self-control, criminal propensity, juvenile delinquency, criminological

theory

Since Anderson’s (1999) description of inner-city life in Philadelphia and his development of the

“code of the streets”, a sizeable literature has tested key components and assumptions within

Anderson’s work. The street code was said to be a product of systemic disadvantage characterized

by neighborhood poverty, a lack of quality educational and professional opportunities, experi-

ences of racism and discrimination, and a lack of trust in institutional structures, specifically the

police. Anderson (1999) proposed the street code was particularly prominent in Black-city

1

Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, USA

2

Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jacob Erickson, Georgia Southern University Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology 1332 Southern Dr, Carroll

Building, Statesboro, GA 30458 1089, USA.

Email: jerickson@georgiasouthern.edu

neighborhoods and was exacerbated by post-industrial conditions of urban poverty in these areas.

In such a context the street code was said to inform interpersonal interactions, including those that

precipitated violence. Anderson (1999) suggested most people in such areas were “decent”and

abide by the law but have learned to behave in certain contexts in a way that shows familiarity with

the street code. On the other hand, some people were “street”and have, to some extent, embodied

the code of the streets and rely on it to inform their interpersonal interactions consistently and

often. Importantly, Anderson (1999) suggested street code beliefs first developed in childhood and

were often strengthened by experience in adolescence before stabilizing as one aged into

adulthood. However, this developmental pattern has been questioned in recent quantitative

analyses. Moule et al. (2015) suggested that individual patterns of street code development and

stability included those that started high on street code agreement before precipitously declining at

just the time Anderson suggests adherence should remain stable, if not increase. Similarly,

Erickson et al. (2020) found decreasing street code adherence into early adulthood was the norm,

not the exception, when analyzed as latent classes of agreement with street code attitudes.

Nearly a decade prior to Anderson’s (1990) development of the code of the streets, Gottfredson

and Hirschi (1990) introduced their general theory of crime with its exclusive emphasis on low

self-control. It was argued understanding propensity for crime and delinquency, and similar

harmful behaviors, was regarded as simple, requiring no special learning, and allowing for

immediate gratification. Accordingly, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) theory emphasized that

low self-control was the ideal forecaster of dysfunctional behaviors that are often correlated with

delinquency and criminality. Low self-control was theorized to develop in childhood before

solidifying for many around eight to 10 years of age and remaining stable there after (Gottfredson

& Hirschi, 1990). An extensive number of studies have examined the effect of low self-control on

crime and delinquency, and some researchers have turned their attention to the stability purported

to be characteristic of low self-control (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Previous researchers have

noted mixed support for the supposition that low self-control remains stable across a person’s

lifecourse (Burt, Simons, & Simons, 2006;Hay & Forrest, 2006;Na & Paternoster, 2012;Turner

& Piquero, 2002).

Of the two constructs, low self-control was theorized to have the most general and consistent

effects, and it is thought to inform behavior in a wide range of contexts. The code of the streets by

contrast, as originally conceptualized, applied mainly to interpersonal confrontations and how

they were to be handled. Individuals “codeswitched”in situations and environments that brought

it to the fore, so it was less generally and consistently applied. Yet, attempts to demonstrate that

one abided by the street code and constructed a reputation as such may be associated with a general

propensity for dangerousness and willingness to commit crime. Both the code of the street and low

self-control were posited to be informed by external factors of socialization and solidify and

stabilize over time (Anderson 1999;Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). However, while street code

attitudes and low self-control have been found to be related in multiple studies, and measures tend

to correlate when repeated, neither have evinced the very high levels of stability originally

theorized (Arnekelev et al., 1998;Erickson et al., 2020;Moule et al., 2015). We add to expanding

literatures on the (in)stability and development of the code of the street and low self-control with a

focus on how each informs the other across time. The code of the street and low self-control are

dispositional orientations that inform attitudes, interaction and behavior in many areas of life,

including crime. Indeed, the code of the street and low self-control may be two components of a

broader criminogenic orientation. Considering theoretical corollaries, similar posited outcomes,

and known empirical associations, it seems likely that individuals who evince high levels of

agreement with street code attitudes will also evince higher levels of low self-control and that each

of these will have effects on each other across time. However, there is no research that has assessed

the reciprocal effects and developmental patterns of each construct on the other longitudinally.

330 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 20(4)