Negative Cases in the Nexus Between Self-Control, Social Bonds, and Delinquency

• Author: Alex R. Piquero,Ryan C. Meldrum,Carter Hay
• Published date: 01 January 2013
• Date: 01 January 2013
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1541204012447959
• Subject Matter: Articles

Articles

Negative Cases in the Nexus

Between Self-Control, Social

Bonds, and Delinquency

Carter Hay

1

, Ryan C. Meldrum

2

, and

Alex R. Piquero

3

Abstract

Gottfredson and Hirschi view social bonds and crime as spurious correlates that are associated

largely because each results from self-control. Prior tests undermine this hypothesis, pointing to

negative cases that run counter to its logic. The authors examine this issue with attention to negative

cases in which self-control does not translate into the expected level of social bonding. Analyzing

data from a sample of U.S. adolescents, the authors found that negative cases constitute between

8% and 27% of cases and that assessing them sheds new light on the interconnections between

self-control, social bonds, and delinquency.

Keywords

social bonds, self-control, general theory of crime, delinquency, spuriousness

The nexus between self-control, social bonds, and crime is a central issue in criminology (Sampson

& Laub, 1993; Wright, Caspi, Moffitt, & Silva, 1999), and one idea in particular has guided much of

the discussion. In A General Theory of Crime, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argued that associa-

tions between social bonds and crime are spurious and attributable largely to preexisting individual

differences in self-control. According to this view, self-control is developed in the first decade of life

and is crucial for social bonding because those with low self-control are less likely to maintain pro-

social attachments and commitments. Ultimately, those with high self-control and social bonds

should be less involved in crime, but self-control rather than social bonds are seen as the principal

cause of crime.

These arguments comprise what has been referred to as ‘‘the spuriousness thesis’’(Evans, Cullen,

Burton, Dunaway, & Benson, 1997, p. 494) or the ‘‘social selection’’ model (Wright et al., 1999,

p. 480). They have attracted significant attention, and for good reason—they suggest that the social

1

College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

2

Department of Criminal Justice, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA

3

Program in Criminology, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA

Corresponding Author:

Carter Hay, College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, 634 W. Call St., Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA

Email: chay@fsu.edu

Youth Violence and JuvenileJustice

11(1) 3-25

ªThe Author(s) 2013

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1541204012447959

http://yvj.sagepub.com

experiences emphasized by most criminological theories are causally unimportant and largely

determined by an individual characteristic (low self-control) that is shaped in large part by age

10. Prior tests of the spuriousness thesis often have not supported this position, at least not entirely

(e.g., Longshore, Chang, & Messina, 2005; Wright et al., 1999). Specifically, although bonds–crime

associations often are reduced when accounting for differences in self-control, they often remain

statistically and substantively significant.

This pattern indicates that although the process that Gottfredson and Hirschi describe may occur

on some level, negative cases—cases that deviate from this expected process—also likely exist to

some degree. For example, there may be cases in which social bonds maintain an independent link

to later crime because their development is not as reliant upon self-control as the general theory of

crime predicts. It bears emphasizing, however, that little is known about these negative cases—no

attention has been devoted to identifying the specific forms they take, how common they are, and

how delinquency varies across different types of negative cases. This represents a lost opportu-

nity—as Giordano (1989, p. 278) argued, ‘‘Every theory has negative cases. Rather than ignore

them, analyzing their characteristics in more detail offers a useful mechanism for refining and

extending a given perspective.’’

This study directs attention to a type of negative case that is central to the spuriousness thesis:

One in which the level of self-control does not translate into the corresponding level of social bond-

ing. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argue that such cases should be relatively rare because the

development of social bonds is highly reliant on self-control (and the persistence, patience, and

thoughtfulness that it implies). However, even if negative cases are rare, they may still be informa-

tive—exceptions to a theoretical rule often can point to fruitful areas for theoretical elaboration

(Sullivan, 2011). Moreover, it is possible that the empirical link between self-control and social

bonds is not as straightforward as the general of theory of crime predicts, and this directs attention

to three questions regarding negative cases. First, what portion of individuals fit a pattern in which

self-control does not translate into the expected level of social bonding? Second, what form do neg-

ative cases take—do they principally involve individuals with high self-control who fail to develop

strong bonds, or alternatively, those with low self-control who unexpectedly develop strong bonds?

Our third research question focuses on implications for delinquency of these negative cases: When

there is incongruence between self-control and social bonds, which factor has the greatest influence

on delinquency?

Addressing these questions can yield more nuanced insights on the nexus between self-control,

social bonds, and crime, and this should facilitate theoretical development in this area. Moreover, by

shedding light on the extent to which self-control deficits in childhood translate into subsequent

problems with social bonding, research on this issue can inform policy efforts meant to prevent

or reduce delinquency among high-risk children and adolescents. We return to these issues in the

final section of the paper. Next, however, we describe the spuriousness thesis and the related

research in greater detail, before turning to our analysis of data from a sample of U.S.

adolescents.

The General Theory of Crime and the Spuriousness Thesis

According to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), self-control should emerge in the first decade of life

when parents monitor child behavior and recognize and discipline deviance when it occurs. This tea-

ches children that deviance has consequences and that they must self-regulate. Alternatively, when

parents fail to do these things, children are placed in a precarious position—they recognize the

immediate pleasures associated with crime and deviance, but do not prioritize the negative conse-

quences of such acts. Thus, they should have low self-control and engage in many acts—criminal

or noncriminal—that carry short- and long-term consequences.

4Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 11(1)