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.

No abstract

Criminologists have long observed an inverse relationship between personal religiosity and self-reported delinquency. However, some scholars would argue that the observed relationship is spurious. Two claims of spuriousness dominate. First, arousal theory argues that individuals vary in their demand for arousal. Those requiring high levels of stimulation are said to be bored with church but aroused by delinquency. Likewise, those who require less stimulation will find comfort in church and exhibit little delinquency. Second, it is charged that the negative effect of religiosity on delinquency is simply the by-product of general social control. Should other more proximate measures of social control be included, the impact of religiosity would wash out. The authors examine these two claims using self-report data from a sample of approximately 1,600 high school students in Oklahoma. OLS and LISREL analyses produce findings which reveal strong support for both claims of spuriousness. When controlling for both arousal theory and social control indicators, the effect of religiosity is reduced to insignificance in the case of assault, theft, vandalism, illicit drug use, and truancy, although it remains significant regarding the use of legalized substances (i.e., tobacco and alcohol). In addition to supporting claims of spuriousness in the religion-delinquency relationship, the authors' work demonstrates: (a) the primacy of self- and social controls, and (b) the utility of an arousal/thrill-seeking perspective in understanding causes and motivations for juvenile delinquency.

No abstract