The interaction between self-control and morality in crime causation among older adults
| Author | Helmut Hirtenlehner,Franziska Kunz |
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370815623567 |
| Published date | 01 May 2016 |
| Date | 01 May 2016 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2015
Article
European Journal of Criminology
2016, Vol. 13(3) 393 –409
The interaction between
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
self-control and morality
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1477370815623567
euc.sagepub.com
in crime causation among
older adults
Helmut Hirtenlehner
Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria
Franziska Kunz
University of Technology Dresden, Germany
Abstract
Situational Action Theory (SAT), a recently developed explanation of criminal conduct, is becoming
increasingly studied. Hitherto, however, nearly all tests of the theory and its hypotheses have
been based on samples of adolescents or young adults. Studies drawing on the older population
have been missing so far. This work addresses the interplay of moral beliefs and the ability to
exercise self-control in crime causation among respondents aged 50 years and over. In line with
SAT and the results obtained previously for young people, our analyses show that self-control
ability affects offending among older adults too, particularly when personal morality is weak.
Keywords
Late-life offending, morality, self-control, Situational Action Theory
Late-life offending is a topic that will increasingly gain significance. In most European
countries, the absolute number as well as the proportion of older people in the population
is growing. People not only live longer; they also stay healthy, fit and mobile until old
age, a fact that is suited to raise senior citizens’ criminal activity. Increasing poverty in
late life arising from economic crises and the dismantling of the welfare state, as well as
a general erosion of the moral foundation of late-modern societies, may contribute to
Corresponding author:
Helmut Hirtenlehner, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Centre for Criminology, Altenberger Strasse 69,
A-4040 Linz, Austria.
Email: helmut.hirtenlehner@jku.at
394
European Journal of Criminology 13(3)
heightened criminal inclinations of older people. These developments suggest that the
levels of crime committed in late adulthood can be expected to rise in most European
countries (Fattah and Sacco, 1989; Feldmeyer and Steffensmeier, 2007; Kunz, 2014),
although crime certainly will not stop peaking in adolescence.
Within criminology, there is a paucity of research on older offenders. Although US
criminologists are increasingly studying offending and victimization in late life
(Holtfreter et al., 2015a,b; Reisig and Holtfreter, 2014; Wolfe, 2015), both theory and
research continue to concentrate on juvenile delinquency and neglect the consequences
of the demographic change for societies’ crime structures. Evidence-based knowledge on
the causes of older people’s criminal involvement has remained very limited.
One prominent theoretical development aimed at explaining rule-breaking behaviour
in all age groups is Per-Olof Wikström’s (2004, 2006, 2010, 2014) Situational Action
Theory (SAT). SAT maintains that acts of crime are an outcome of how individuals per-
ceive their action alternatives and make their choices. The interaction of people’s crimi-
nal propensity and their exposure to criminogenic settings initiates a perception–choice
process that immediately guides action. The theory has already received its share of
empirical scrutiny (and this with promising results), but mostly among samples of ado-
lescents and young adults (for example, Svensson and Pauwels, 2008; Wikström and
Butterworth, 2006; Wikström et al., 2010, 2012). Studies drawing explicitly on older
people have been absent so far, which is a remarkable deficiency given SAT’s focus on
the perception–choice processes of people of all ages.
This article will focus on one specific aspect of SAT, namely the postulated interplay
of personal morality and ability to exercise self-control in crime causation. SAT states
that self-control is a relevant factor in the aetiology of criminal behaviour only when
moral forces do not prevent criminal conduct from being seen as a viable action alterna-
tive. This is tantamount to positing an interaction between morals and self-control, with
self-control ability influencing behavioural decisions only when morality is weak. So the
hypothesis guiding this research can be formulated with Wikström and Svensson (2010:
400): ‘Self-control is assumed to have an effect on offending only when the level of
morality is low and therefore practically no effect on offending when the level of moral-
ity is high.’
Previous research has been largely supportive of this hypothesis. However, most of
the available evidence comes from samples of adolescents and young adults, only in
exceptional cases from studies drawing on the general population (De Li, 2004;
Hirtenlehner, 2015; Pauwels, 2015; Schoepfer and Piquero, 2006; Svensson et al., 2010;
Tittle et al., 2010; Wikström and Svensson, 2010). To our knowledge, the morality–self-
control interaction has not yet been tested among senior citizens specifically.
This work adds to the literature by scrutinizing the interplay of personal morality and
ability to exercise self-control in the older population. Based on a large German survey
among people aged 50 years and over, we investigate whether the findings obtained for
younger populations generalize to older adults. Older people’s lower criminality (as
compared with younger people) (Hirschi and Gottfredson, 1983), their reduced physical
and sometimes also cognitive capabilities and their specific life situation (characterized,
for example, by isolation and excessive leisure time) may challenge the explanatory
power of mechanisms emphasized in general action theories. This article is the first to
Hirtenlehner and Kunz
395
examine the tenability of the morality–self-control interaction hypothesis in late
adulthood.
Theory and previous research
SAT (Wikström, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2010, 2014) seeks to explain why people comply
with or breach rules of conduct. According to the theory, acts of crime are acts that
break moral rules defined in law. The basic assumption of SAT is that criminal acts are
an outcome of a perception–choice process initiated by the interaction between a per-
son’s criminal propensity and his or her exposure to criminogenic settings. An indi-
vidual’s criminal propensity comprises his or her personal sense of morality
(internalized rules of conduct that materialize as moral beliefs, values and emotions)
and his or her ability to exercise self-control (the ability to resist current temptations
and provocations towards rule-breaking behaviour). The criminogeneity of a setting is
determined by its moral context (the moral rules that apply to it) and its deterrent char-
acter (the enforcement of these rules). Criminogenic exposure is expected to lead to
criminal behaviour especially when it is experienced by individuals with high levels of
criminal propensity.
The perception–choice process is the crucial situational mechanism that links person
and environment to action. This process encompasses two stages: the perception of basi-
cally thinkable behavioural alternatives to act upon a particular motivation and the choice
from the host of the considered alternatives. The so-called moral filter, which is com-
posed of the person’s individual morality and the moral norms of the setting, governs
which action alternatives are taken into consideration in relation to a certain motivation.
Internal and external controls (self-control and deterrence) affect the process of choice
among the pondered alternatives, but they only come into play when the moral filter has
failed to exclude crime from the catalogue of perceived action alternatives. It is only
when people see crime as a viable behavioural option that the weighing of the pros and
cons of criminal alternatives for action – and with that the exertion of control – becomes
a relevant factor in crime causation. So action is not conceptualized as the outcome of
pure rational choices; greater significance is accorded to personal moral values and the
moral make-up of the surroundings. Perception, a fundamentally moral endeavour, is
more important for explaining offending than choice. For most people in most circum-
stances, self-control ability is irrelevant for their course of action, simply because they
either act habitually or, owing to a functioning moral filter, do not see crime as an alter-
native (Wikström and Treiber, 2007).
Apart from the primacy of morals, rationality is further restricted in SAT by acknowl-
edging that decision-making can take two forms: habitual (in familiar situations the actor
perceives only one action alternative and quasi-automatically forms an intention to carry
it out) and rational (in unfamiliar situations the actor considers several response options,
weighs their potential consequences and selects the one that appears best). Only when
individuals deliberate over behaviours and their consequences can control have an effect
on action.
Whereas SAT’s understanding of personal morals (an individual’s values and beliefs
about what is right or wrong to do and the associated moral emotions) is rather
396
European Journal of Criminology 13(3)
straightforward, SAT’s notion of self-control deserves more attention because it differs
somewhat from that proposed in Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) General Theory of
Crime.
According to Gottfredson and Hirschi...
To continue reading
Request your trial