Rethinking self-control and crime: Are all forms of impulsivity criminogenic?
| Author | Brynn E. Wendel,Michael Rocque,Chad Posick |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1477370820902992 |
| Published date | 01 July 2022 |
| Date | 01 July 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370820902992
European Journal of Criminology
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1477370820902992
journals.sagepub.com/home/euc
Rethinking self-control
and crime: Are all forms of
impulsivity criminogenic?
Brynn E. Wendel
CBRE, USA
Michael Rocque
Bates College, USA
Chad Posick
Georgia Southern University, USA
Abstract
Traditionally, criminological research on impulsivity and crime assumes impulsivity is a uniform
construct that is positively related to deviant behavior. However, psychological research on
impulsivity indicates that the construct may have multiple forms, which vary in their relationship
to antisocial behavior. One possibility that few studies have examined is whether some forms of
impulsivity are unrelated, or negatively related, to antisocial behavior. This study uses Dickman’s
(1990) functional and dysfunctional impulsivity scales and finds that dysfunctional impulsivity is
a better predictor of crime than functional impulsivity, but does not differ for substance use or
school deviance. These results highlight ways that impulsivity measures can be refined in the
future.
Keywords
Impulsivity, self-control, delinquency, functional impulsivity, dysfunctional impulsivity
Introduction
Self-control remains a central theoretical construct in the criminological literature, with
much empirical support showing it is negatively related to crime (Pratt and Cullen, 2000;
Rocque et al., 2016; Tittle, 2011). Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) view self-control as a
Corresponding author:
Michael Rocque, Department of Sociology, Bates College, 2 Andrews Road, Lewiston, Maine 04240, USA.
Email: mrocque@bates.edu
902992EUC0010.1177/1477370820902992European Journal of CriminologyWendel et al.
research-article2020
Article
2022, Vol. 19(4) 523–541
multidimensional construct, hinging on the ability to regulate behavior in the face of
short-term desires. Impulsivity, one of the primary components of self-control, has also
been considered a key factor in criminological studies. Individuals characterized by
impulsivity behave differently than individuals who can resist temptation (Matthews
et al., 2004) and, generally, impulsivity has almost exclusively been considered to be
positively related to antisocial behavior (Lynam and Miller, 2004).
Research supports the notion that impulsivity is related to antisocial behavior and other
negative consequences (Gerbing, et al., 1987; Lassiter, 2009; Lynam and Miller, 2004;
Miller and Lynam, 2001; Moffitt et al., 2011; Vogel and Barton, 2013). Most definitions
of impulsivity represent the trait as something that is undesirable to oneself and others.
Claes et al. (2000) provide multiple definitions of the characteristic, such as ‘“human
behavior without adequate thought” (Smith, 1952) . . . “action of instinct without recourse
to ego restraint” (Demont, 1933) . . . “acting on thoughts that are not in the individual’s or
others’ best interest” (Anon, 1951)’ (Claes et al., 2000: 27–8). In addition to the negative
implications of definitions of impulsivity, many studies, too, have indicated that impulsiv-
ity is strongly related to non-criminal but socially undesirable behaviors, such as risky
driving and smoking (Matthews et al., 2004; Mitchell, 1999; Taute and McQuitty, 2004).
Although impulsivity seems to correlate with antisocial behavior, research suggests some
impulsive individuals do not face negative consequences, and are even at times rewarded,
for having the trait (Prentky and Knight, 1986; Rand and Epstein, 2014).
In criminology, Julie Horney (2006), in her American Society of Criminology
Presidential Address, pointed out the possibility that there are different flavors of impul-
sivity or self-control. She argued that her self-control is strong in some contexts (show-
ing up for work) and poor in others (saying no to dessert). Others have also recognized
that impulsivity may be multidimensional (for example, Whiteside and Lynam, 2001).
Impulsivity in certain contexts and in certain situations is not necessarily antisocial. In
fact, some forms of impulsivity may be ‘heroic,’ such as quickly saving a person’s life
(see Rand and Epstein, 2014). A more nuanced conceptualization of impulsivity may
help improve the explanatory power of self-control theory (Weisburd and Piquero, 2008).
Although some research has examined variability underlying impulsivity, identifying
which forms are more strongly related to risky behavior (for example, Whiteside et al.,
2005; Whiteside and Lynam, 2001), few have sought to determine whether some forms
of impulsivity have positive or neutral consequences. Matthews et al. (2004), however,
contend that impulsivity sometimes leads to positive outcomes. Impulsive individuals
may have a greater enjoyment of life and be more creative. Rather than impulsivity rep-
resenting an unambiguously negative trait, it may be benign in some instances, or even
beneficial.
To build upon previous work on impulsivity and crime, this article utilizes two meas-
ures of impulsivity and examines their relationship to various forms of deviance. Around
30 years ago, Dickman developed two forms of impulsivity, labeling them functional and
dysfunctional. These measures have been used almost exclusively in psychology to the
exclusion of criminology. We draw on these measures in an analysis of over 500 college
students. We compare these impulsivity measures in their ability to explain crime and
deviance in three areas: general antisocial behavior, substance deviance, and school
misbehavior.
524 European Journal of Criminology 19(4)
To continue reading
Request your trial