Evaluating Self-Control Theory Among the Deaf Community

• Author: Tony R. Smith,Jason D. Scott,Judy L. Porter,LaVerne McQuiller Williams
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X211049186
• Published date: 01 April 2023
• Date: 01 April 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X211049186

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2023, Vol. 67(5) 524 –545

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X211049186

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

Evaluating Self-Control

Theory Among the Deaf

Community

Tony R. Smith1, Jason D. Scott1, Judy L. Porter1,

and LaVerne McQuiller Williams1

Abstract

This study evaluates the generality of self-control theory with a previously untested

cultural group rarely studied by criminologists, the Deaf community. Survey data

(n = 428) from participants attending a university that houses a college for the

Deaf and hard-of-hearing were compared with a sample of “hearing” students.

The findings support Gottfredson and Hirschi’s cultural invariance thesis as self-

control was consistently able to predict a wide range of rule-breaking behaviors

among the culturally distinct groups examined. However, several unexpected results

challenge the parental management thesis. In particular, exposure to effective

parenting techniques was a significant contributor to variations in self-control for the

hearing, but not the Deaf sample. Additionally, self-control did not fully mediate the

relationship between child-rearing experiences and norm violating behaviors for the

Deaf sample. Implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords

self-control, cultural invariance, Deaf culture, parental management

Introduction

A General Theory of Crime has been tested numerous times, employing a wide array

of methodologies that have found empirical evidence providing support for the theory

(see de Ridder et al., 2012; Pratt & Cullen, 2000; Vazsonyi et al., 2017). Self-control

theory, as argued by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990, pp. 174–179), is not conditioned

1Rochester Institute of Technology, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:

Tony R. Smith, Department of Criminal Justice, Rochester Institute of Technology, 93 Lomb Memorial

Drive, Rochester, NY 14623-5603, USA.

Email: trsgcj@rit.edu

1049186IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X211049186International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologySmith et al.

research-article2021

Smith et al. 525

by differences found across cultures. This cultural invariance hypothesis has previ-

ously been tested with a wide variety of cultural groups. These empirical studies, how-

ever, have not examined self-control theory among cultures that transcend race and

ethnicity and that are not bound by geography. In particular, self-control theory has not

been tested among the distinct culture established by the Deaf and hard of hearing

population. This current study attempts to add to the cross-cultural evaluations of A

General Theory of Crime drawing on samples from a mid-sized private university that

also houses an institute for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students.

Deaf Culture

The Deaf community represents a unique avenue to examine the cultural invariance of

self-control theory. According to Ladd (2003), the earliest use of the term “culture” to

describe the collective life of individuals with profound auditory loss began in the

1950s with the sociolinguist’s use of “subcultures” (Lunde, 1960), the “social and

cultural characteristics of deaf people” (Stokoe et al., 1965), and “Deaf community

life” (Higgins, 1980). One of the earliest definitions of Deaf culture was produced by

Padden (1980) when she referenced a “set of learned behaviors of a group of people

who have their own language, values, rules for behavior, and traditions” (p. 92). While

these early references to Deaf culture occasionally varied in their specific emphasis,

they shared a common understanding based on the distinction between the audiologi-

cal condition of not hearing, often denoted with a lowercase deaf, from the group

membership of individuals sharing a common language, institutions, norms, values,

and customs, and designated with the uppercase Deaf (Padden & Humphries, 1988).

In other words, “those within the deaf community who are culturally Deaf consider

themselves to be a linguistic and cultural minority, not people with a disability (Pray

& Jordan, 2010, p. 173).” According to Reagan (1995), “The Deaf cultural community

is, from the perspective of the sociocultural model of deafness, characterized by the

same kinds of elements that characterize any other cultural community, including: a

common, shared language (ASL), a shared awareness of Deaf cultural identity, dis-

tinctive behavioral norms and patterns, cultural artifacts, endogamous marital pat-

terns, a shared historical knowledge and awareness, and a network of voluntary,

in-group social organizations (Reagan, 1995, p. 243).” It has been estimated that

approximately half a million people in the United States view deafness from this cul-

tural framework (Lane, 2005). This figure, of course, does not include members of the

mainstream culture—for example, hearing friends and family, Deaf allies, ASL inter-

preters, et cetera—who may also subscribe to this cultural framework as well. Below

we provide a brief overview of the literature defining the Deaf culture that we offer in

support of the inclusion of this group in our cross-cultural test of self-control theory.

Some have argued that the most prominent feature or defining characteristic of

Deaf culture is language (Pray & Jordan, 2010). American Sign Language (ASL) is the

primary language used by Deaf native signers and it is estimated that ASL is the pre-

dominant language used by between 100,000 and 500,000 Americans (Padden, 1987).

Holcomb (2013) describes language as “[enabling] people in the community to have