Using an expanded measure of self-control to predict delinquency

Abstract

Self-control theory claims that the tendency to pursue short-term, immediate pleasure, called low self-control, is the only important intrapersonal correlate of crime and delinquency. Low self-control is considered a general tendency comprising several subsidiary traits. The question is whether the subsidiary traits traditionally considered to constitute the individual elements of low self-control – impulsivity, risk-seeking, shortsightedness, low frustration tolerance, self-centeredness, and a preference for physical activities – accurately reflect the essence of self-control theory. The present paper provides theoretical and empirical support for the incorporation of two additional characteristics – diligence and the tendency to neutralize one's guilt for wrongdoing – into the overall self-control construct. Empirical support is provided by the results of two studies in which diligence and neutralization significantly and substantially improve the ability of traditional low self-control to account for variance in offending. A third additional trait, deception, did not enhance the explanatory power of traditional low self-control.

Keywords:

• Self-control
• delinquency
• diligence
• neutralization
• personality and crime

Notes

1. It could be argued that this statement suggests that diligence should be considered separate from self-control. However, if diligence turns out to account for variance in delinquency (and it does; see Wiebe, 2003), then self-control would no longer be the only important intrapersonal correlate of crime. Thus, to support, rather than contradict, self-control theory, diligence should simply be considered a component of self-control.

2. The substantial number of absent students may have meant that this study missed a good deal of offending, because traits associated with absenteeism are theoretically related to delinquency as well. However, the correlates of offending among absent students are not expected to differ systematically from those correlates among our sample (see Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990); thus, absenteeism is not believed to have distorted these results.

3. While an argument might be made that “manifestations” do not equal traits, it should be noted that, immediately following the long quotation, Gottfredson and Hirschi refer to “[t]his combination of characteristics” (1990, p. 93, emphasis supplied). Moreover, many of these characteristics, besides neutralization, are overtly intrapersonal in nature; for example, an “almost complete lack... of willingness to assume responsibility; and, finally, emotional poverty.”

4. Grasmick and colleagues (1993, pp. 8–9) had originally considered including low commitment, but concluded that it would be better considered an outcome rather than a component of LSC. In contrast, several researchers, notably Rowe (1996; Rowe, Vazsonyi, & Figueredo, 1997), have posited that a tendency toward short-term relationships, or “mating effort” (Rowe, 1996), is a trait that correlates strongly with offending as well as sexual behavior. Thus, mating effort and LSC may overlap considerably, and may in fact constitute basically the same construct (see Ellis, 1990a; Rowe, Rodgers, Meseck-Bushey, & St John, 1989).