|
Article Excerpt
De nombreux experts s'entendent pour dire que les theories de la maitrise de soi et du stress constituent des explications distinctes, voire antinomiques, de la criminalite et de la delinquance. C'est dans ce cadre qu'on procede, dans le present article, a une reevaluation de la theorie des paradigmes antinomiques en envisageant la complementarite eventuelle des deux phenomenes en tant que sources de la delinquance et en testant l'hypothese de Gottfredson et de Hirschi (1990), selon laquelle la maitrise de soi servirait a endiguer le comportement criminel. Or, si cette hypothese devait s'averer valide, on serait amene a conclure que les personnes possedant la maitrise de soi a un niveau eleve seraient en mesure d'attenuer les impacts du stress et qu'elles eviteraient donc de faire des gestes criminels. Par ailleurs, les adolescents dont la maitrise de soi est faible ne possederaient pas l'autodiscipline voulue pour s'abstenir d'un comportement criminel et feraient donc preuve de tendances criminelles plus poussees. Il faut obtenir des donnees sur une periode d'interaction significative vue de valider l'hypothese susmentionnee. On a donc procede a la collecte lecte et a l'analyse de donnees provenant d'un echantillon de plus de 2 000 adolescents qui frequentaient des ecoles intermediaires et secondaires dans une ville de l'Ouest canadien, et ce, en vue de cerner les impacts independants et contextuels de la maitrise de soi et du stress sur l'implication ou non dans les activites criminelles. Or, les resultats de l'etude laissent croire que tant la maitrise de soi que le stress seraient des facteurs determinants au niveau de la delinquance, mais qu'ils exerceraient leur influence de facon additive plutot qu'interactive. Force est donc de conclure que les donnees recueillies ne viennent pas etayer les postulats des theoriciens de la maitrise de soi qui, eux, pretendraient sans doute que les impacts du stress seraient conditionnes par une maitrise de soi faible.
Self-control and strain perspectives are widely viewed as independent and contrasting explanations for crime and delinquency. This paper re-evaluates the competing paradigms approach by considering the two theories as potentially complementary in explaining participation in delinquency based on Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990) assumption that self-control acts as a barrier to criminal behaviour. If such a claire is valid, one would hypothesize that individuals with high self-control would be able to mediate the effects of strain and refrain from engaging in delinquent activities. In contrast, adolescents with low self-control may not be equipped with the necessary constraints to abstain from delinquency and would therefore exhibit the greatest criminal propensities. A significant interaction term would support such claims. Data from a sample of over 2,000 adolescents attending junior and senior high schools in a western Canadian city were analysed to determine the independent and contextual effects of self-control and strain on involvement in delinquent behaviour. Results suggest that both self-control and strain are important contributors to delinquency, but in an additive and not an interactive way. Such results do not seem to provide support for claims made by control theorists, who would no doubt argue that the effects of strain should be conditioned by low self-control.
Criminology has long been dominated by a competing paradigms orientation, in which its best-established theoretical perspectives are viewed as offering incompatible approaches to the study of crime and delinquency. More than 20 years ago, in her seminal Social Sources of Delinquency, Kornhauser compared the underlying theoretical models of social theories, concluding that the "underlying assumptions," in some cases, were so different that they could be characterized as "fundamentally opposed" (1978: 29). In the years since, the focus of explanations has shifted from the structural processes reviewed by Kornhauser to the more individual-level determinisms central to contemporary theories. Yet theories such as Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime (1990; Hirschi and Gottfredson 1993, 1994), which emphasizes self-control, and Agnew's general strain theory (1990, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1997), with its focus on individual strain, continue to be viewed as independent and often competing explanations for criminal and delinquent behaviour (Burton, Cullen, Evans, and Dunaway 1994). Although these perspectives are seen as mutually exclusive from one another, substantively, they may be more compatible than previously thought.
Empirical research has produced some support for both approaches. Tests of self-control have been both more numerous and more consistent regarding the utility of the concept as a predictor of criminal behaviour (see, e.g., Hope and Damphousse 2002; Vazsonyi, Pickering, Junger, and Hessing 2001; Nakhaie, Silverman, and LaGrange 2000a, 2000b; LaGrange and Silverman 1999; Forde and Kennedy 1995; Ameklev, Grasmick, and Tittle 1993; Brownfield and Sorenson 1993; Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, and Ameklev 1993; Keane, Maxim, and Teevan 1993). Recent empirical tests of key concepts of general strain theory have also demonstrated some support (see, e.g., Maxwell 2001; Sharp, Terling-Watt, Atkins, Gilliam, and Sanders 2001; Agnew, Rebellon, and Thaxton 2000; Aseltine, Gore, and Gordon 2000; Piquero and Sealock 2000; Agnew 1999; Hoffman and Cerbone 1999; Brezina 1998; Burton, Cullen, Evans, Alard, and Dunaway 1998; Hoffman and Miller 1998; Mazerolle and Maahs 1998).
Most of the body of research into these two perspectives has relied on data gathered from general populations of juveniles or adults and has sought to explain broad types of delinquent and criminal behaviour. It seems unlikely, in these circumstances, that subjects represent unique groups whose actions can be attributed to distinct causal processes. A far more tenable assumption is that the elements of both self-control and strain predict involvement in delinquency and that, to the extent that they exist within the same populations, they may be complementary. In his discussion of general strain theory, Agnew suggests several overlapping ways in which this might occur, since an individual's ability to cope with strain is influenced by "sensitivity to objective strains," "level of social control," and "temperamental variables" (1992: 71-73), factors that closely approximate the internal controls identified by control theories (Hirschi 1969; Mazerolle and Maahs 1998). Although Agnew is referring to social control, it may be that low self-control (which necessarily exists before strain) also plays a conditioning role for strain.
The concepts of strain and self-control, by themselves, provide somewhat limited and simplistic explanations for crime and delinquency (Tittle 1995). For instance, strain of one sort or another is an everyday occurrence for virtually everyone; clearly, not all strained individuals will offend, because the amount of strain experienced varies from one person to another. "There are many ways to cope with strain," as Agnew notes, "only some of which involve delinquency" (1992: 70). Similarly, the idea of low self-control as a general, all-encompassing explanation for criminal behaviour has been described as simplistic. Caspi, Moffitt, Silva, Southamer-Loeber, Krueger, and Schmutte argue that "[c]rime-proneness is defined not by a single tendency (such as self-control or impulsivity) but by multiple psychological components" (1994: 187). Important factors, they suggest, are high negative emotionality and low constraints--characteristics that clearly parallel the negative affect, or anger, central to strain theory--and the dimension of low self-control. Hence, the elements of strain and self-control may be viewed as complementary forces causing a greater propensity towards delinquent behaviour. Multidimensional (or interactive) explanations for criminal conduct that embrace both forces might therefore be expected to produce stronger results than either one alone.
The goal of this article is to test this assumption--or, more specifically, whether or not strain interacts with self-control. Does strain have a differential impact on the likelihood of delinquency depending on an adolescent's level of self-control? A significant interaction term would suggest that the impact of strain is moderated by self-control; in other words, strain has a lesser or greater impact on delinquent propensities, depending on an adolescent's level of self-control. This assumption is theoretically justified because it is suggested that self-control pre-exists strain; as a result, self-control would moderate the effect of strain, rather than vice versa. Conversely, are the theoretical concepts of strain and self-control mutually exclusive from one another, as Kornhauser (1978) and others have suggested (Hirschi 1969, 1979)? If that were the case, the effects of strain and self-control would be additive rather than interactive, with low self-control and strain increasing the likelihood of delinquency independent of one another.
It should be pointed out that when we say "mutually exclusive" we mean that the operational variables used to test each theory influence delinquency in fundamentally different ways, as is consistent with the earlier claims made by both Hirschi (1969) and Kornhauser (1978). Both social structural strain and Agnew's revised strain theories propose that an individual may be pushed into delinquency by external acts or elements; both Hirschi's earlier control theory and contemporary theories of low self-control assert that an inadequately socialized individual needs no external impetus to act on internal, hedonistic impulses. Although there has been some debate that certain measures of general strain theory are compatible with Hirschi's (1969) social control theory, this article investigates the utility between self-control (not social-control) and general strain theory, which for all purposes are mutually exclusive, in theory and operationally. (2)
General strain and delinquency
Classical strain theory attributed crime and delinquency to the frustration produced by blocked goal-achievement (Merton 1938; Cohen 1955; Cloward and Ohlin 1960). Robert Agnew's (1992) more recent elaborations of "general strain theory," however, moved beyond these earlier structural paradigms. The basic assumption of general strain theory is that strain may result from a wide range of negative situations in one's life. General strain theory employs a diverse array of social-psychological measures that focus on the negative relationships people have with others--"relationships in which others are hot treating the individual as he or she would like to be treated" (Agnew 1992: 50). These negative relationships heighten the likelihood that individuals will experience negative affect, which thereby creates pressure for corrective action--crime being one possible response. Crime, then, becomes a mechanism for alleviating strain, seeking revenge, or managing negative affect (Agnew 1997: 104).
Several empirical studies have demonstrated support for general strain theory (Maxwell 2001; Sharp et al. 2001; Agnew et al. 2000; Aseltine et al. 2000; Piquero and Sealock 2000; Agnew 1999; Hoffman and Cerbone 1999; Brezina 1998; Burton et al. 1998; Hoffman and Miller 1998; Mazerolle and Maahs 1998; Baron and Hartnagel 1997; Broidy and Agnew 1997; Hoffman and Su 1997; Mazerolle and Piquero 1997; Paternoster and Mazerolle 1994; Agnew and White 1992). A number of these studies have examined the degree to which other factors may either reduce or enhance the likelihood of strain's leading to crime and delinquency. For instance, in a study examining both delinquency and drug use, Agnew and White (1992) assess the role of delinquent peers as a negative coping mechanism, contributing to greater involvement in delinquency. In contrast, they found that self-efficacy seems to operate as a positive coping mechanism, which...
|
