Self-Control, Prison Victimization, and Prison Infractions

• Published date: 01 December 2009
• Date: 01 December 2009
• Author: Heith Copes,Kent R. Kerley,Andy Hochstetler
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016809332840
• Subject Matter: Articles

Criminal Justice Review
Volume 34 Number 4
December 2009 553-568
© 2009 Georgia State University
Research Foundation, Inc.
Self-Control, Prison Victimization,
10.1177/0734016809332840
http://cjr.sagepub.com
and Prison Infractions
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
Kent R. Kerley
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Andy Hochstetler
Iowa State University, Ames
Heith Copes
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s self-control theory has been the subject of much debate and empir-
ical testing. Although the theory was developed originally as an explanation for criminal
offending, researchers recently have examined whether low self-control may increase the risk
of criminal victimization. This study assesses the effects of low self-control on victimization
and offending among the incarcerated. We utilize structural equation models to test the impact
of low self-control on prison victimization and prison infractions based on a study involving
208 recently paroled inmates from a Midwestern state. The results indicate that risk taking is
a significant predictor of prison victimization and temper is a significant predictor of infrac-
tions. We conclude that self-control theory is a potential predictor of prison infractions and
victimization and that personality traits seen as generally criminogenic in the free world may
have particular situational ramifications in prison.
Keywords: Prison Violence, Prison Victimization, Prison Deviance, Self-Control Theory
Those who seek to develop theories of human behavior often strive to be parsimonious.
Ideally, a theory that explains a wide range of behaviors with a few succinct statements
is preferable to one that relies on a complex set of propositions and variables to explain
only a small range of events. Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) “general theory of crime”
exemplifies a parsimonious theory. Reduced to its simplest form, their theory is rooted in
the classical assumption that individuals are naturally hedonistic and, therefore, guided
by the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Some children learn to suppress
their tendencies from attentive parents. However, when parents or guardians fail to instill
self-control in children early in life, they will be more likely than others to pursue oppor-
tunities for criminal and risky (i.e., analogous) behaviors.
Investigators have challenged Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory on several grounds
including its conceptualization (Geis, 2000), the stability of self-control over the life course
(Bartusch et al., 1997; Hay & Forrest, 2006; Sampson & Laub, 1993), and the applicability
Authors’ Note: The authors thank the editors, three anonymous reviewers, and Rod K. Brunson for comments
on a previous version of the manuscript. Please address correspondence to Kent R. Kerley, University of
Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Justice Sciences, 1201 University Boulevard, Suite 210, Birmingham,
AL 35294; e-mail: krkerley@uab.edu.
553

---

554 Criminal Justice Review
of the theory to certain types of crime such as violence (Belknap, 2007; Cretacci, 2008;
Kerley, Xu, & Sirisunyaluck, 2008) and white-collar crime (Benson & Moore, 1992; Van
Wyk, Benson, & Harris, 2000). Despite these critiques, the theory has emerged as a major
viable explanation for a wide variety of criminal and deviant behaviors largely due to its
succinctness and explanatory power. Based on a meta-analysis of 21 empirical studies of
self-control theory, Pratt and Cullen (2000) concluded that self-control was one of the
strongest known correlates of crime. Pratt and Cullen contend that self-control is such a
strong predictor of criminal offending that “future research that omits self-control from its
empirical analyses risks being misspecified” (p. 952).
The influence of self-control theory, as it is commonly referred, has been unquestionable.
A General Theory of Crime has been one of the most cited theoretical works in the past two
decades. According to the Social Science Citation index, it has been cited over 900 times.
Another testament to the vitality of the theory is that scholars have begun to see value in it
outside of its use as an explanation of crime. Most notably, self-control has been shown to
be a significant predictor of criminal victimization (Kerley et al., 2008; Piquero, MacDonald,
Dobrin, Daigle, & Cullen, 2005; Schreck, 1999; Schreck, Stewart, & Fisher, 2006; Stewart,
Elifson, & Sterk, 2004). Findings from these studies suggest that self-control theory is a
plausible explanation of criminal offending and victimization in a variety of settings.
Building on this previous extension to victimization studies, we examine how the
relationship between self-control, victimization, and offending is influenced by environmental
settings (i.e., prisons). Specifically, we examine whether self-control can predict both
prison victimization and prison infractions in a sample of 208 recently paroled men in the
Midwestern region of the United States. This study is intended to enhance our understanding
of self-control theory by determining how behavioral outcomes associated with self-control
are affected by environmental settings.
Self-Control and Criminal Victimization
Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) purported to explain criminal offending of all types, at
all points in time, and in all places based on the absence or presence of self-control. They
point out that most crimes are risky, exciting, poorly planned, have a short-term and small
payoff, and are more physical than mental. All of these elements are attractive to offenders
who lack self-control. Even when they are not violating codified laws, individuals with low
self-control tend to engage in behaviors that are impulsive and risky such as smoking,
drinking, gambling, and sexual promiscuity. This multidimensional trait thus contributes to
individuals choosing to engage in these types of behaviors. Deficits in self-control are
thought to occur as a result of ineffective parental socialization in the formative years of a
child’s life. Children not taught early to control tempers, to recognize boundaries, to avoid
impulsive and risky behaviors, and to delay gratification are at a heightened risk of having
deficiencies in self-control. Early deficits in self-control, combined with criminal
opportunities, provide the “recipe” for crime and other risky behaviors. Compounding the
problems for those with self-control deficits is Gottfredson and Hirschi’s claim of relative
indelibility for levels of self-control. They argue that even as children mature and eventually
transition into adulthood, their levels of self-control fluctuate little. Thus, self-control is

---

Kerley et al. / Self-Control, Prison Victimization, and Prison Infractions 555
presented as a personality trait that is generally impervious to changing social contexts after
childhood.
Although self-control theory was developed originally to explain participation in
criminal and analogous behaviors, Gottfredson and Hirschi noted that “victims and offenders
tend to share all or nearly all social and personal characteristics. Indeed the correlation
between self-reported offending and self-reported victimization is, by social science
standards, very high” (1990, p. 17). Even before the publication of A General Theory of
Crime, Gottfredson (1981, pp. 725-726) argued that “the factors most closely associated
with victimization are factors that have also been found to be associated with offending.
That is, by and large, combinations of characteristics predictive of offending are also
predictive of victimization.” With this as a launching pad, several scholars have examined
whether self-control can be used to explain criminal victimization (Piquero et al., 2005;
Schreck, 1999; Schreck et al., 2006; Stewart et al., 2004). The central argument, expressed
as a syllogism, is that if (a) self-control is a significant predictor of criminal offending and
(b) victims and offenders share common characteristics, it is reasonable to anticipate that
(c) self-control will be a significant predictor of criminal victimization (Piquero et al.,
2005).
It is not that individuals with low self-control consciously or intentionally place
themselves in vulnerable situations but that the lack of self-control precludes an
awareness of the potential deleterious outcomes of their own risky behaviors and
includes a particularly strong taste for action and danger. Several elements of self-
control can be reformulated to account for victimization. First, individuals with low
self-control are impulsive and have difficulty in delaying gratification. They tend to
adopt a “here-and-now” approach to life and seek immediate gratification in most
circumstances. Because of their impulsivity, they typically fail to see the long-term
consequences of their decisions and interactions with others. Stewart et al. (2004, p. 176)
suggested that “individuals with low self-control tend to have difficulty succeeding in
social institutions, conventional activities, and personal relationships that require delayed
gratification or planning.”
Second, individuals with low self-control typically find themselves in risky situations
and behaviors. They often gravitate toward risky activities without much thought of taking
appropriate precautions (Schreck et al., 2006). For example, persons with low self-control
would be more likely to provoke and antagonize others without considering fully the
...