世界経済・社会統計 = World development indicators

This chapter suggests that delinquency conceals two distinct categories of individuals, each with a unique natural history and etiology: A small group engages in antisocial behavior of one sort or another at every life stage, whereas a larger group is antisocial only during adolescence. According to the theory of life-course-persistent antisocial behavior, children's neuropsychological problems interact cumulatively with their criminogenic environments across development, culminating m a pathological personality. According to the theory of adolescence-limited antisocial behavior, a contemporary maturity gap encourages teens to mimic antisocial behavior in ways that are normative and adjustive. There are marked individual differences in the stability of antisocial behavior. The chapter reviews the mysterious relationship between age and antisocial behavior. Some youths who refrain from antisocial behavior may, for some reason, not sense the maturity gap and therefore lack the hypothesized motivation for experimenting with crime.

/pdf/adolescence-limited-and-life-course-persistent-antisocial-52vil00qlw.pdf

Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy.

Research on the relation between attitude and behavior is examined in light of the correspondence between attitudinal and behavioral entities. Such entities are defined by their target, action, context, and time elements. A review of available empirical research supports the contention that strong attitude-behavior relations dre obtained only under high correspondence between at least the target and action elements of the attitudinal and behavioral entities. This conclusion is compared with the rather pessimistic assessment of the utility of the attitude concept found in much contemporary social psychological literature.

/pdf/attitude-behavior-relations-a-theoretical-analysis-and-2wr3erzb6j.pdf

Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research.

This paper critically examines available theoretical models which have been derived from statistically established patterns of association between contextual and organizational variables. These models offer an interpretation of organizational structure as a product of primarily economic constraints which contextual variables are assumed to impose. It is argued that available models in fact attempt to explain organization at one remove by ignoring the essentially political process, whereby power-holders within organizations decide upon courses of strategic action. This `strategic choice' typically includes not only the establishment of structural forms but also the manipulation of environmental features and the choice of relevant performance standards. A theoretical re-orientation of this kind away from functional imperatives and towards a recognition of political action is developed and illustrated in the main body of the paper.

Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance: The Role of Strategic Choice

In 1974 an article appeared in Science magazine with the dry-sounding title “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases” by a pair of psychologists who were not well known outside their discipline of decision theory. In it Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman introduced the world to Prospect Theory, which mapped out how humans actually behave when faced with decisions about gains and losses, in contrast to how economists assumed that people behave. Prospect Theory turned Economics on its head by demonstrating through a series of ingenious experiments that people are much more concerned with losses than they are with gains, and that framing a choice from one perspective or the other will result in decisions that are exactly the opposite of each other, even if the outcomes are monetarily the same. Prospect Theory led cognitive psychology in a new direction that began to uncover other human biases in thinking that are probably not learned but are part of our brain’s wiring.

Thinking fast and slow.

In A General Theory of Crime, Gottfredson and Hirschi propose that low self-control, in interaction with criminal opportunity, is the major cause of crime. The research reported in this article attempts to test this argument while closely following the nominal definitions presented by Gottfredson and Hirschi. A factor analysis of items designed to measure low self-control is consistent with their contention that the trait is unidimensional. Further, the proposed interaction effect is found for self-reported acts of both fraud and force (their definition of crime). Inconsistent with the theory are (a) the finding that criminal opportunity has a significant main effect, beyond its interaction with low self-control, on self-reported crime and (b) the substantial proportion of variance in crime left unexplained by the theoretical variables. Suggestions are offered for modifying and expanding the theory.

Testing the Core Empirical Implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi's General Theory of Crime:

Sanctions and Social Deviance: The Question of Deterrence

Gottfredson and Hirschi'sA General Theory of Crime contends that individual differences in involvement in criminal and analogous behavior are due largely to individual differences in the personality trait they call low self-control. Among the various behaviors considered analogous to crime are imprudent behaviors such as smoking, drinking, and gambling. This research explores the generality of Gottfredson and Hirschi's theory by examining the link between low self-control and these imprudent behaviors. The results are mixed. In support of the theory, the data reveal a modest but significant effect of a scale designed to capture the various components of low self-control on an index of imprudent behavior. A more detailed analysis, however, reveals that some of the components of low self-control, specifically those probably linked to low intelligence, detract from the scale's predictive power. In fact, one of the components, risk-seeking, is more predictive than the more inclusive scale. Furthermore, one of the imprudent acts, smoking, appears to be unaffected by low self-control. These contradictory findings suggest the need for theoretical refinements.

Low self-control and imprudent behavior

Thirty-five studies examining the relationship between social class and crime/delinquency are reduced to comparable statistics using instances where the relationship was studied for specific categories of age, sex, race, place of residence, data type, or offense as units of analysis. The findings from 363 instances are summarized and patterns are identified. The overall results show only a slight negative relationship between class and criminality, with self-report studies reflecting lower associations than official statistics studies. Moreover, analysis demonstrates a clear historical decline in magnitude of association to the point where both self-report and official statistics studies done in the current decade find no class variation. This historical trend is shown to be due to changes in the findings from studies using official statistics as indicators of criminality. Alternative interpretations are discussed, but all lead to serious doubts about the adequacy of theories of deviance that contain assumptions of class differences. (abstract Adapted from Source: American Sociological Review, 1978. Copyright © 1978 by the American Sociological Association) Social Class Class Factors Sociocultural Factors Socioeconomic Factors Crime Causes Delinquency Causes Adult Crime Adult Offender Juvenile Crime Juvenile Delinquency Juvenile Offender 07-00

/pdf/the-myth-of-social-class-and-criminality-an-empirical-5fx35rlikv.pdf

The myth of social class and criminality: an empirical assessment of the empirical evidence*

A major contribution to the field of crime/deviance, this volume by noted criminologist Charles R. Tittle puts forth an integrated theory of deviance—control balance. Its central premise is that the total amount of control people are subjected to, relative to the control they can exercise, will affect the probability and type of their deviant behavior. In developing control balance, Tittle critically reviews other general theories such as anomie, Marxian conflict, social control, differential association/social learning, labelling, and routine activities and offers reasons why those theories are insufficient. Using real-world examples to illustrate his argument, he contends that deviance results from the convergence of four variables, each of which represents an interactive nexus of several inputs, including most prominently a control imbalance. The variables are predisposition, motivation, opportunity, and constraint. Control balance theory also explains six basic types of deviance, ranging from predation, defiance, and submissiveness on one end of a control ratio continuum to exploitation, plunder, and decadence on the other. Tittle conceives of control balance as a continuation, or temporary culmination, of the collective efforts of crime/deviance scholars who have gone before, presenting it as a vehicle for trying to achieve a fully adequate general theory of deviance.

Charles R. Tittle

Papers

Testing the Core Empirical Implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi's General Theory of Crime:

Sanctions and Social Deviance: The Question of Deterrence

Low self-control and imprudent behavior

The myth of social class and criminality: an empirical assessment of the empirical evidence*

Control Balance: Toward A General Theory Of Deviance