The Connection Between Substance Abuse and Crime, Essay Example

Introduction

Criminologists have expressed considerable dissatisfaction with existing theories of crime and deviance. Textbook writers (see, for example, Nettler 1984; Jackson and Griffiths 1991) routinely present lengthy discussion of criticisms of crime and deviance theories. One of the principal criticisms of these theories is the lack of explanatory power provided by these ideas. Most researchers concede that nearly every theory, or certain propositions of nearly every theory, receives some level of empirical support. The level of empirical support is almost uniformly modest or weak.

One recent response to the dissatisfaction with current theories has been theoretical integration. Integration, following a dictionary definition, has been defined as efforts “to bring parts together into a unified whole” (Liska, Krohn, and Messner 1989: 1). The notion of a unified whole implies some ordering or establishing of relationships among parts. Thornberry (1989: 52) more systematically defines theoretical integration as “the act of combining two or more sets of logically interrelated propositions into one larger set of interrelated propositions, in order to provide a more comprehensive explanation of a particular phenomenon”.

Canadian criminologists have made significant contributions to integrated explanations that include control theory elements. For example, Linden and his colleagues (Linden and Hackler 1973; Linden and Fillmore 1981) combine social control theory with differential association to develop a more complete explanation than is provided by either theory by itself. Hagan’s (1989) power-control theory combines structural factors based on occupational status and autonomy with social control theory variables. LeBlanc and his colleagues (see, e.g., Caplan and LeBlanc 1985) may have developed the most thorough integration of control theory by including elements of differential association, personality traits, and structural variables such as social status. American criminologists such as Elliott (Elliott, Huizinga, and Ageton 1985) have attempted to integrate control theory with social learning and strain theories.

Despite previous opposition to theoretical integration (see Hirschi 1979; 1989), Travis Hirschi (in a co-authored book with Michael Gottfredson (1990)) has joined the ranks of the integrationists by combining classical theory with the concept of “self-control” in a new general theory of crime. Hirschi (1989) and others may argue that this does not represent true integration of theories in that combining such perspectives merely combines cognate and perhaps identical theories.(1) Yet Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime is precisely the kind of theoretical effort that follows the definitions of integration set forth by Liska et al. and by Thornberry. These definitions require that a “unified whole” be created (or ordered relationships be established) and that the propositions of the constituent theories be logically interrelated.

Both classical theory and the self-control concept assume that individuals are self-seeking or pursue pleasure and avoid pain, and will attempt to maximize their individual well-being. Under this model, individuals will refrain from crime and deviance only if constrained from such behavior. The assumption about the motivation to deviate is identical in both classical theory and the self-control concept: individuals are assumed to have a constant or invariant motivation to deviate.

In this paper, we will analyze the integration of classical theory and the concept of self-control in Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) general theory of crime. We will discuss classical theory and the self-control concept, noting the logical consistency of these constituent theories and describing the integration of these theories. In addition, we will empirically assess the utility of the general theory of crime as an explanation of adolescent drug use.

Classical theory and self-control

The classical theory of crime is usually consigned to a brief review in undergraduate criminology classes and texts, and then lectures and texts proceed to the currently important theories. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) imply that we may be shortchanging our students and our own understanding of crime and deviance by not devoting more attention to classical theory. Roshier (1989) provides an excellent discussion of classical theory and its potential relevance for contemporary criminological theory.

Among the classical theorists, Beccaria and Bentham were the two most influential writers in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Beccaria and others of the classical perspective were particularly influential in stating ideas leading to reform of the criminal justice systems that were brutal, arbitrary, and excessive in the punishment inflicted on offenders. The notion of free will in classical theory implied grading punishment to the seriousness of the offense in a more refined way. Imprisonment substantially displaced capital punishment and grotesque forms of corporal punishment, as the classical theory principle that the threatened punishment must simply outweigh (and not overwhelm) the rewards of crime became more accepted.

Both Beccaria and Bentham shared a utilitarian conception of human behavior in which calculations of pleasure and pain guided the choices and actions of individuals. Subsequent neoclassical philosophers modified the absolute principles of the earlier classical school writers, allowing for mitigating circumstances in assigning punishment against, for example, the mentally ill. (Most social scientists do not share the free will approach, nor would many social control theorists accept the notion of completely unrestricted free will.)

Although some considered Bentham an ivory tower theorist, “untainted by human experience” (Jackson and Griffiths 1991: 177), his influence on criminology and criminal justice was enormous. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990: 85-87) demonstrate this enduring influence by drawing on Bentham’s classical theory. Gottfredson and Hirschi characterize classical theory as an underdeveloped form of social control theory given the emphasis on moral sanctions rather than legal punishment in Bentham’s writings. While most criminologists have focused on the policy implications of classical theory, which has led to an emphasis on legal sanctions, Bentham and other classical theorists actually emphasized moral and social sanctions as more crucial than legal penalties (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990: 85).

Classical theory fails to predict individual differences in the propensity to commit crimes that remain stable regardless of the circumstances or situation encountered. All individuals pursue the pleasure-pain principle according to classical theorists; offenders differ from nonoffenders only in their calculation of the costs and benefits of crime under this conception. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990: 87) comment that classical theory thus fails to account for differences in what they label “self-control”; individual differences in self-control persist regardless of risk or the perception of risk of punishment.

Gottfredson and Hirschi assert that the classical theory and the concept of self-control are remarkably compatible. Classical theory focuses on the external control of behavior based on perceived costs of crime, which vary according to the individual’s location or social bonds. The self-control concept focuses on the individual’s internal control of behavior of the degree to which individuals may succumb to tempting situations. “Combining the two ideas thus merely recognizes the simultaneous existence of social and individual restraints on behavior” (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990: 88).

Classical theory and the concept of self-control are both compatible with a free will or choice conceptualization of crime and deviance. Neither classical theory nor the self-control concept are deterministic since both recognize the possibility of individual decision making. The image of the individual pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain depicted by Bentham is also completely compatible with the self-control concept. Thus, Gottfredson and Hirschi integrate the propositions of classical theory and the concept of self-control.

Other control theorists have advanced similar theoretical combinations previously (cf. Akers 1991). For example, Reiss (1951) distinguishes between personal and social controls as barriers to delinquency. Reckless (1967) used the concepts of inner and outer containment as a similar distinction of internal and external restraints. Hirschi (1969) does not explicitly distinguish individual and social restraints in his earlier version of social control theory; however, the element of commitment is similar to the classical theory focus on stakes in conformity or a rational investment in conformity, while the element of attachment forms a portion of the new concept of self-control.

The concept of self-control includes attachment to others, but Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990: 89-91) incorporate many other dimensions of character in their description of this concept. For example, self-control refers to the ability to defer gratification. Criminals and drug users tend to pursue the immediate gratification of their desires. Individuals who lack self-control will pursue immediate pleasures that include not only drinking and drug use, but also gambling and illicit sex. Those lacking self-control are even predicted to be more likely to be involved in automobile accidents. The theory is “general” in the sense that it may explain diverse forms of crime, including burglary, drug use, violence, and white collar crime.

Self-control implies that individuals are diligent and persistent. In contrast, the offender cannot tolerate frustration and seeks to obtain things easily or effortlessly. Long term commitment to a conventional career and to relationships such as marriage and family tends to be lacking among those with little self-control. The notion of self-control is, therefore, inconsistent with the criminal career paradigm in that it asserts that crimes do not provide long term benefits; instead, crimes inhibit long term commitments to marriage, friends, and family.

Individuals who lack self-control neither possess nor value cognitive or academic skills. The skills required for most acts of deviant behavior such as drug use are minimal. Individuals with a high level of self-control tend to be cautious as well as cognitive. Offenders tend to be more inclined to be thrill seeking and adventuresome. The risk of an action such as taking cocaine or hallucinogens is attractive to the person lacking self-control. In a recent study of drinking and driving, Keane, Maxim, and Teevan (1993) conclude that measures of self-control or risk-taking behavior are significantly correlated with driving under the influence. Risk-taking behavior such as the failure to wear seat belts is linked to higher levels of blood alcohol concentration (Keane et al. 1993: 40).

Individuals who lack self-control are self-centered or egotistical, indifferent to the feelings and needs of others. Those lacking in self-control are indifferent to the harm created by their actions or to the trust that is broken by such actions.

Based on classical theory, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990: 220) state that controls for opportunity to commit offenses should be considered independent of the characteristic of self-control. For example, individuals lacking self-control may still refrain from drug use if these substances are not available. Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, and Arneklev (1993) report interactions between measures of opportunity and self-control that are significantly related to assault and fraud. Bachman, Johnston, and O’Malley (1990) find, however, that perceived availability of drugs such as marijuana and cocaine is not significantly related to recent declines in drug use.

Based on Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory, we predict that measures derived from classical theory and the self-control concept will be significantly correlated with adolescent drug use. We predict that this integrated theory will provide a substantial increase in explained variance compared with previous theories. Finally, we hypothesize that the effects of general theory variables on drug use will remain significant controlling for the influence of other factors such as peer delinquency.

Data

The data used in the analysis in this paper are taken from interview and questionnaire responses in the Seattle Yough Study (Hindelang, Hirschi, and Weis 1981). More than eleven hundred (N = 1,119) male and female high school students completed interviews or questionnaires in this study.

Hindelang et al. (1981: 37) report a somewhat higher level of alcohol and marijuana use in the Seattle study than in previous self-report studies. For example, they note a prevalence rate of marijuana use of about seventy percent in the sample. This rate of marijuana use is also noted to be similar to the rates found in contemporary surveys of adolescents. Further, the prevalence rate of heroin use in the Seattle sample is also reported to be very similar (about one percent) to the prevalence rates in other contemporary studies.

The Seattle Youth Study contains several variables relevant to the measurement of the construct of self-control and for the measurement of constructs based on classical theory. In the Appendix, we provide a more complete description of the variables used in this study, including item wording and scoring of the variables.

Classical theorists focus on the calculation of risk by the individual in terms of the likelihood of punishment for engaging in criminal or deviant acts. Many prior studies (eg, Jensen, Erickson, Gibbs 1978; Klepper and Nagin 1989; Bachman et al. 1990; Keane et al. 1993) have used measures of perceived risk of punishment. In this paper, we will use the following measure of perceived risk of punishment: “People who break the law are almost always caught and punished” (CAUGHTP). We would prefer to have measures of perceived risk of punishment for drug offenses in particular, but no such variables are available in this study.

Classical theorists also emphasized the role of informal sanctions and deterrence. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990: 97-105) further observe that self-control is developed in part by effective socialization within the family. Parents must not only recognize deviant behavior among their children but they must also be willing and able to punish or correct such behavior (cf. Patterson and Dishion 1985). In this study, we use the following measure of parental supervision: “As far as my father is concerned, I’m pretty much free to come and go as I please” (DADSUP).

As mentioned earlier, the “self-control” construct includes several aspects of individual character that provide restraints against deviant behavior. Among these are the individual’s concern for the opinion of others, such as parents and teachers. Parental attachment, in accordance with Hirschi’s (1969) operationalization, is measured by the following item: “Would you like to be the kind of person your father is?” (IDDAD). Attachment to teachers is measured by the following item: “Do you care what teachers think of you?” (CARTCH).

Self-control also refers to the tendency to be diligent and persistent in a course of action. Those who lack self-control tend to seek immediate gratification of their desires. One measure of diligence in the Seattle study asks respondents about their academic effort in the following item: “I try hard in school” (TRYHARD).

Much of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) discussion of self-control revolved around academic issues. Some of this discussion focuses on the extent to which individuals value academic achievement and ability. The following item was selected to measure the respondent’s evaluation of academics: “Such things as books, school, and education don’t interest me very much” (INTELL). Gottfredson and Hirschi also stress actual effort and accomplishment in school as indicators of self-control. Respondent’s school performance was measured by the following item: “Putting them all together, how would your grades average out?” (GRADES). Time spent on homework was measured by the question, “How many hours per week do you spend doing homework?” (HOMEWK). Self-control also refers to the individual’s tendency to plan and engage in long term commitments. As an indicator of this tendency, the following measure of educational expectations will also be included in the analysis: “How much schooling do you actually expect to get eventually?” (EDEXP).

Several factors considered in prior research and theory are not incorporated in Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Most notably, the influence of peers is excluded as a causal factor from this theory. In stating a version of control theory, Gottfredson and Hirschi retain the assumption that the motivation to deviate is constant and therefore requires no explanation, such as the presence of peer influence. This assumption may be tested empirically by including measures of peer influence in our analysis to determine if the general theory constructs are sufficient to account for variations in drug use or if alternative explanations must also be considered. Bailey and Hubbard (1990) report that peer use and possession of alcohol and marijuana is significantly related to initiation of marijuana use among eighth and ninth grade students, but not among children in lower grades.

We include the following measures of peer delinquency and attachment to peers in our analysis: “How many of your best friends have been picked up by the police?” (POLFR); and, “Do you share your thoughts and feelings with your best friend?” (FRSHAR). We would have preferred a measure of peer drug use in particular, but no such variables were available in the Seattle data. White, Pandina, and LaGrange (1987) report that measures of peer delinquency and peer drug use are comparably related to measures of self-reported drug use (including the use of alcohol, marijuana, hallucinogens, and cocaine).

Several studies (e.g., Higgins and Albrecht 1977; Burkett and Warren 1987; Marcos, Bahr, and Johnson 1986) have also found that religion has a significant effect on drug use. Based on the theoretical discussion of D’Antonio, Newman, and Wright (1982), which distinguishes the “social control” and “social support” functions of religion and the family, Brownfield and Sorenson (1991) construct an index of social support derived from measures of religious and family life. This index was found to have a significant effect on self-reported drug use among adolescents. The social support index includes measures of church attendance, religiosity, church affiliation, and communication with the father. Confirmatory latent variable analysis reveals that the same index may be constructed for male and female respondents. We will include this social support index (SUPPORT) along with the measures of peer influence as variables potentially necessary to account for drug use in addition to the general theory variables.

The measure of drug use employed in this study is based on a modified Guttman scale (Sorenson and Brownfield 1989). This modified Guttman scale is constructed from responses to the following five observed measures of drug use: (1) “Have you ever drunk beer or wine?”; (2) “Have you ever smoked marijuana (grass, pot)?”; (3) “Have you ever taken barbiturates (downers) or methedrine (speed or other uppers) without a prescription?”; (4) “Have you ever taken angel dust, LSD, or mescaline?”; (5) “Have you ever used cocaine?”

We found no significant differences between males and famales in patterns of self-reported drug use. Latent variable analysis for male and female respondents produced a four category measure of drug use, with the percentage of the sample in each category noted in parentheses: (1) no drug use or alcohol use only (18.7%); (2) alcohol and marijuana use (36.9%); (3) alcohol, marijuana, and limited use of drugs such as barbiturates or cocaine (28.0%); and (4) use of the drugs described in all five observed measures (16.3%).

Findings

Our empirical analysis begins with an assessment of the bivariate relationships between drug use and the measures derived from classical theory elements of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. We find that both formal (perceived risk of punishment, CAUGHTP) and informal (parental supervision, DASUP) types of control seem to inhibit drug use. Those who believed that people who break the law (CAUGHTP) are caught and punished are slightly less likely to report extensive or serious drug use than those who believe that people may break the law with impunity (Somers’s d = .08). Respondents who report a high level of informal control as measured by paternal supervision (DADSUP) are also less likely to be involved in drug use than those whose fathers are more lackadaisical in their supervision. In Table 1 we summarize the bivariate analyses of drug use by all of the independent variables included in this study.

Consistent with the general theory, we find that all of our measures of self-control are significantly correlated with adolescent drug use. For example, our measure of academic effort (TRYHARD) is significantly correlated with drug use. Students who claim to try hard in school are less likely to report extensive involvement in drugs than those who claim to be less diligent (Somers’s d = .26). All of the remaining measures of self-control in Table 1 are significantly correlated with drug use in the predicted direction.

Consistent with previous research and Linden’s integrated theory (Linden and Fillmore 1981), we find that peer delinquency (POLFR) is positively and strongly correlated with self-reported drug use (Somers’s d = .40). We also find that attachment to peers (FRSHAR) is positively correlated with self-reported drug use (Somers’s d = .12). This is contrary to predictions based on Gottfredson and Hirschi’s version (and other versions) of control theory. This finding is consistent with prior research on attachment to peers and deviant behavior (see, e.g., Massey and Krohn 1986). Finally, we find that the index of social support (SUPPORT), which includes measures of religious involvement and paternal communication, is significantly correlated with drug use. Those who were found to have a high level of social support are about half as likely (9.5%) to report use of all five drug types than those who were found to have a low level of social support (23.1%).

We next considered multivariate analyses of drug use and the variables based on Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime, including controls for peer relationships and the index of social support. It is possible that variables based on the general theory do not have a significant effect on drug use once we consider alternative factors such as peer influence. For example, academic effort (TRYHARD) may not be relevant to drug use if we control for the effects of peer delinquency (POLFR). To test for this possibility (and for the possibility that other general theory variables may be eliminated from consideration), we must use a multivariate statistical analysis. Here we treat the measure of drug use as a continuous variable and we use multiple regression. In Table 2, we present the results of our regression analysis.

Overall, we find that several of the general theory variables remain significantly related to drug use. As predicted by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), measures based on both classical theory and on the self-control concept appear to be important correlates of drug use. Both of the measures based on the classical theory component of the general theory, perceived risk of punishment (CAUGHTP) and parental supervision (DADSUP), remain significant predictors of drug use.

Some of the measures based on the self-control concept also remain significantly related to drug use. Parental attachment (IDDAD), academic effort (TRYHARD), and school performance (GRADES) are significantly correlated with drug use in the multivariate analysis. Attachment to teachers (CARTCH), evaluation of academics (INTELL), time spent on homework (HOMEWK), and educational expectations (EDEXP), however, become statistically insignificant in their effects on drug use. The effect of the social support index (SUPPORT) also is no longer statistically significant after controlling for the general theory variables and peer relationships measures. Both measures of peer relationships, peer delinquency (POLFR) and attachment to peers (FRSHAR), remain significantly associated with drug use.

The total amount of variance accounted for by all of the included variables ([R.sup.2] = .21) is consistent with the levels of variance accounted for in numerous other studies of deviance. If we consider the amount of variance accounted for by only the general theory variables ([R.sup.2] = .13), we can tentatively conclude — contrary to our prediction — that the explanatory power of this new theoretical integration seems relatively modest.

Summary

In this paper, we have discussed the theoretical integration of classical theory and the self-control conceptualization in Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) general theory of crime. We have attempted to show that logically interrelated propositions of the constituent theories have been combined into a larger single set of interrelated principles. For example, both classical theory and the self-control conceptualization assume that human nature is self-seeking, with individuals striving to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Both classical theory and the self-control conceptualization assume that individuals will refrain from crime and deviance only if they are constrained from such behavior. Both classical theory and the self-control conceptualization assume that there is a constant motivation to deviate; unlike learning theory, no provision of a motive to deviate is necessary. Both classical theory and the self-control conceptualization are compatible with a free will or choice perspective on crime and deviance; neither of the constituent theories is deterministic.

A key omission in classical theory, according to Gottfredson and Hirschi, is its inability to predict individual variation in capacity to resist temptation regardless of perceived risk of punishment. To overcome this limitation of classical theory, Gottfredson and Hirschi add the concept of self-control to produce a theory that includes external and internal restraints on behavior.

In our analysis we find that, indeed, both measures of self-control and external restraints (based on classical theory) must be included to account for variation in drug use. These measures based on Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime remain significantly correlated with drug use controlling for factors such as peer delinquency, peer attachment, and an index of social support that incorporates measures of religious participation. Consistent with prior research, we find that peer delinquency has the strongest effect on drug use of any single variable considered in this study.

In reference to theoretical integration, Liska et al. (1989: 1819) argue that theoretical growth and development should be evaluated partly in terms of the logical coherence of ideas and in terms of inspiration of further research. Theoretical integrations may help overcome the perceived state of exhaustion in tests of traditional theories. Gottfredson and Hirschi have created a logically consistent integration of classical theory and the selfcontrol concept that should inspire new theorizing and empirical research for years to come.

Nevertheless, Liska et al. (1989) observe that theoretical growth and development has often been evaluated primarily in terms of increasing empirical support. If we assess Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime on the basis of its ability to account for variation in drug use, then this analysis yields only moderate support for the theory. We find the level of variance accounted for by general theory measures to be comparable to or somewhat below levels of variance accounted for by existing theories of crime and deviance.

Some omissions of the current study should be explicitly acknowledged. These omissions may in part account for the modest level of explained variance in this study. First, there are no measures of the time orientation of individuals in the data set analyzed. Time orientation, or the ability to defer gratification, is a key aspect of the concept of self-control. Second, no measures of opportunity (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990: 220) were included in this data set. For example, indicators of the actual availability of drugs (cf. Bachman, Johnston, and O’Malley 1990, who assess perceived availability of drugs) may be essential to provide a more complete test of the general theory of crime.