The compensatory effects of inner and outer controls
| Published date | 01 November 2019 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370818788010 |
| Author | Gorazd Meško,Helmut Hirtenlehner |
| Date | 01 November 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2018
Article
European Journal of Criminology
2019, Vol. 16(6) 689 –707
The compensatory effects
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
of inner and outer controls
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370818788010
DOI: 10.1177/1477370818788010
journals.sagepub.com/home/euc
Helmut Hirtenlehner
Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria
Gorazd Meško
University of Maribor, Slovenia
Abstract
Internal and external controls have been firmly established as factors restraining criminal activity,
but surprisingly little is known about their concrete interplay. Inspired by recent theoretical
developments, such as Situational Action Theory or the life-course model of interdependence,
this work addresses the question whether the crime-reducing impact of outer controls is
conditioned by the level of inner controls. Analyses of a student survey from Slovenia reveal
that external regulatory mechanisms exercise a greater effect when internal restraints decrease
in size. This finding points to a compensatory relationship between controls located in different
domains. Inner and outer controls may substitute for one another to a certain extent.
Keywords
control theories, juvenile delinquency, person–environment interaction, Situational Action
Theory
Introduction
For decades control theories of crime causation have stressed that a lack of controls or
weak bonds to society foster criminal behavior (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990; Hirschi,
1969; Reckless, 1967; Reiss, 1951; Sampson and Laub, 1993; Toby, 1957). A rich body
of research has established that various forms of internal and external control affect the
frequency of offending (Ellis et al., 2009; Gottfredson, 2006; Hoeve et al., 2009; Kempf,
1993; Paternoster, 2010; Pratt and Cullen, 2000). Stronger controls make crime less
Corresponding author:
Helmut Hirtenlehner, Centre for Criminology, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Altenberger Strasse 69,
Linz, A-4040, Austria.
Email: helmut.hirtenlehner@jku.at
690
European Journal of Criminology 16(6)
likely. However, up to now empirical studies have concentrated on the additive effects of
diverse controls (for example, Costello and Vowell, 1997; Dukes and Stein, 2001; Evans
et al., 1997; Janssen et al., 2016; Longshore et al., 2004; Marshall and Enzmann, 2012;
Sampson and Laub, 1993; Simons et al., 1998; Wright et al., 1999). This may be due to
the fact that most control theories are remarkably ambiguous regarding the interworking
of internal and external forms of control. So assuming that their effects simply add up –
that their contributions to crime reduction are independent of each other – is the easiest
way to make allowance for their joint workings. As a consequence of this unsatisfactory
practice, little is known about the concrete interplay of inner and outer types of control.
This is astonishing, given that Reckless (1961: 42) pointed out already in the 1960s that
there are ‘elements within the self and within the person’s immediate world that enable
him to hold the line against deviancy’. In his containment theory, he identified an inner
and an outer control system and suggested a complementary relationship between the
two. If an individual suffers from a weak inner containment, his or her outer containment
has to be more powerful to prevent him or her from offending. The same applies con-
versely: if an individual is faced with weak external controls, his or her internal inhibi-
tions must be more effective to forestall delinquency. This boils down to an interactive
operation of the inner and outer regulatory systems. Interaction means that the impact of
one concept on an explanandum is dependent on the value of another concept (Aiken and
West, 1991). In a control theory framework, this implies that the size of the effect of
external controls on crime involvement is contingent on the level of internal controls,
and vice versa.
Despite the prominence of control theories in explaining criminal behavior, evidence
on the nature of the interplay of internal and external controls has remained scarce. This
work aims to help close this research gap by explicitly focusing on the interactive impact
of inner and outer controls on the scope of adolescent offending. Drawing on several
recently proposed accounts of the roots of criminal activity that can be read as modern
versions of control theory, it is investigated whether the impact of external controls on
adolescent crime involvement is conditioned by the level of internal controls and whether
a compensatory relationship exists between inner and outer regulatory mechanisms. In
line with scattered evidence that the different types of control may substitute for one
another (Agnew, 2003; Gerich, 2014; Jones and Lynum, 2009; Meier et al., 2008; Nakhaie
et al., 2000; Ousey and Wilcox, 2007; Wright et al., 2001), we hypothesize that external
controls have a larger effect on offending when internal controls are low. The data under-
lying our analyses were gathered among students in Ljubljana (Slovenia) in 2011.
Theoretical accounts of an interactive impact of inner and
outer controls
Control theories of crime and delinquency (Britt and Rocque, 2016; Kornhauser, 1978)
are based on the assumption that humans are by nature self-interested hedonists striving
for easy, effortless and immediate gratification of their desires. Criminal behavior often
meets these criteria, which is sufficient to explain its seducing power.1 Thus, in order to
function and survive, societies must introduce a multitude of mechanisms that will
reduce the chances of individuals perceiving crime as being to their benefit. These
Hirtenlehner and Meško
691
mechanisms may take a variety of different forms, but all aim at burdening criminal acts
with negative consequences in order to render them less attractive. The sources of these
controls may be internal (located within the individual, for example strong moral beliefs,
high self-control, a positive self-concept)2 or external (embedded in social relationships
and institutions, for example parental monitoring, legal sanction threats, neighborhood
collective efficacy). External controls may affect behavior both directly (through surveil-
lance, discipline and sanctioning) and indirectly (through jeopardizing valued relation-
ships and investments). Formal sources of external control (deterrence through the
criminal justice system) may be distinguished from informal sources (an individual’s
natural relationship networks, for example family, school or workplace). The key propo-
sition is that ‘individuals who are under a high level of control will be unlikely to commit
crime, since the personal and social costs of crime will not be perceived to be in their
self-interest. Alternatively, individuals who are under weak controls will be much more
likely to commit crimes – they have, in some sense, been “freed” to commit criminal
acts, since the personal and social costs of crime are viewed as low relative to the per-
ceived benefits of crime’ (Britt and Rocque, 2016: 184).
Having clarified the major arguments of criminological control theories, we now
direct our attention to the interplay of inner and outer forms of social control. Aside from
Reckless’s (1961, 1967) containment theory, few writings published in the past century
have elaborated on this issue. However, in recent years new theoretical accounts of crim-
inal behavior have emerged that have straightforward implications for the division of
labor between internal and external controls.
Recently, Wright and colleagues (2001) proposed a theoretical perspective on crime
causation that returns to the interactive workings of internal and external controls as
originally outlined by Reckless (1961). In their life-course model of interdependence,
they essentially argue that the effects of social ties on offending vary as a function of an
individual’s criminal propensity, whereby the latter is deemed the partial result of various
internal control factors (for example self-control). Their considerations can be summa-
rized in three hypotheses. The ‘cumulative disadvantage hypothesis’ states that antisocial
personality components can sabotage the formation of prosocial relationships over time.
The ‘social protection hypothesis’ posits that prosocial ties (bonds to family, education
or employment) or external controls exercise a crime-dampening effect, particularly
among individuals of high crime propensity (that is, individuals characterized by low
levels of inner containment). The ‘social amplification hypothesis’ maintains that antiso-
cial ties or bonds to delinquent peers exert a crime-enhancing effect, especially among
individuals with a strong disposition for crime (again, those marked by weak internal
controls). The underlying logic is that people with an elevated predisposition for crime
– which means people with insufficient crime-inhibiting forces inside the self – feel more
often tempted to offend, which renders them more susceptible to criminogenic peer
influences and implies that they require more external control to curb their criminal
inclinations.
Hay and Meldrum’s (2016) integrated life-course self-control theory follows the same
road. Although the theorists concentrate on the development and workings of self-con-
trol, they also address its interaction with other controls....
To continue reading
Request your trial