Whereas Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime asserts that individuals with low self-control are more likely to engage in all types of crime as well as analogous acts, some research has recently questioned the generality of the theory, particularly with regard to its explanation of corporate crime. In addition, recent research has shown that another individual characteristic—the desire for control, or the general wish to be in control over everyday life events—may help shed greater light on understanding corporate criminality. Based on data from a factorial survey administered to working adults enrolled in business classes, the relationship between these two concepts was examined, with attention paid to the ability of each to explain corporate crime. Results indicate that neither an attitudinal nor a behavioral measure of low self-control relates to corporate offending but that the desire for control does. Theoretical implications and future directions are discussed.
Arneklev, B.J., Grasmick, H.G., Tittle, C.R., & Bursik, R.J., Jr. (1993). Low self-control and imprudent behavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 9, 225-247.
2.
Bandura, A. ( 1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3.
Benson, M.L., & Moore, E. ( 1992). Are white-collar and common offenders the same? An empirical and theoretical critique of a recently proposed general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29, 251-272.
4.
Braithwaite, J. ( 1984). Corporate crime in the pharmaceutical industry. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
5.
Burger, J.M. ( 1992). Desire for control: Personality, social, and clinical perspectives. New York: Plenum Press .
6.
Burger, J.M., & Cooper, H.M. ( 1979). The desirability of control. Motivation and Emotion, 3, 381-393.
7.
Calavita, K., & Pontell, H.N. ( 1990). "Heads I win, tails you lose": Deregulation, crime, and crisis in the savings and loan industry. Crime and Delinquency , 36, 309-341.
8.
Gebhardt, W.A., & Brosschot, J.F. (2002). Desirability of control: Psychometric properties and relationships with locus of control, personality, coping, and mental and somatic complaints in three Dutch samples. European Journal of Personality, 16, 423-438.
9.
Geis, G. ( 2000). On the absence of self-control as the basis for a general theory of crime. Theoretical Criminology, 4, 35-53.
10.
Gibbs, J.J., Giever, D.M., & Martin, J. ( 1998). Parental management and self-control: An empirical test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 42-72.
11.
Gottfredson, M.R., & Hirschi, T. ( 1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
12.
Grasmick, H.G., Tittle, C.R., Bursik, R.J., Jr., & Arneklev, B.J. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottrfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 5-29.
13.
Green, D. ( 1989). Measures of illegal behavior in individual-level deterrence research. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26, 253-275.
14.
Higgins, G.E. ( 2005). Can low self-control help with the understanding of the software piracy problem? Deviant Behavior, 26, 1-24.
Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M.R. (1989). The significance of white-collar crime for a general theory of crime. Criminology, 27, 359-371.
17.
Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M.R. (2000). In defense of self-control . Theoretical Criminology, 4, 55-69.
18.
Keane, C., Maxim, P.S., & Teevan, J.J. ( 1993). Drinking and driving, self-control, and gender: Testing a general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 30-46.
19.
Kim, M., & Hunter, J. ( 1993). Relationships among attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behavior: A meta-analysis of past research. Communications Research, 20, 331-364.
20.
LaGrange, T.C., & Silverman, R.A. (1999). Low self-control and opportunity: Testing the general theory of crime as an explanation for gender differences in delinquency. Criminology, 37, 41-72.
21.
Langer, J.R. ( 1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 311-328.
22.
Mustaine, E.E., & Tewksbury, R. ( 2002). Workplace theft: An analysis of student-employee offenders and job attributes. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 111-127.
23.
Nagin, D.S., & Paternoster, R. (1993). Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law and Society Review , 27, 467-496.
24.
Paternoster, R., & Simpson, S. ( 1996). Sanction threats and appeals to morality: Testing a rational choice model of corporate crime. Law and Society Review, 30, 549-583.
25.
Piquero, A., & Tibbetts, S.G. (1996). Specifying the direct and indirect effects of low self-control and situational factors in offender decision-making: Toward a more complete model of rational offending. Justice Quarterly, 13, 481-510.
26.
Piquero, N.L., Exum, M.L., & Simpson, S.S. ( 2005). Integrating the desire for control and rational choice in a corporate crime context. Justice Quarterly, 22, 252-280.
27.
Pogarsky, G. ( 2004). Projected offending and contemporaneous rule-violation: Implications for heterotypic continuity. Criminology, 42, 111-135.
28.
Pratt, T.C., & Cullen, F.T. ( 2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931-964.
29.
Reed, G.E., & Yeager, P.C. ( 1996). Organizational offending and neoclassical criminology: Challenging the reach of a general theory of crime. Criminology , 34, 357-382.
30.
Sellers, C. ( 1999). Self-control and intimate violence: An examination of the scope and specification of the general theory of crime. Criminology, 37, 375-404.
31.
Simpson, S.S. ( 2002). Corporate crime, law, and social control. New York: Cambridge University Press.
32.
Simpson, S.S., Paternoster, R., & Piquero, N.L. ( 1998). Exploring the micro-macro link in corporate crime research . In P. A. Bamberger & W. J. Sonnenstuhl (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations: Deviance in and of organizations (Vol. 15, pp. 35-68). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
33.
Simpson, S.S., & Piquero, N.L. ( 2002). Low self-control, organizational theory, and corporate crime. Law and Society Review, 36, 509-548.
34.
Sommerfeld, J., & Lawrence, P.R. (1978). Why do companies succumb to price fixing? Harvard Business Review, 56, 145-157.
35.
Steffensmeier, D. ( 1989). On the causes of "white-collar" crime: An assessment of Hirschi and Gottfredson’s claims. Criminology, 27, 345-358.
36.
Stylianou, S. ( 2002). The relationship between elements and manifestations of low self-control in a general theory of crime: Two comments and a test . Deviant Behavior, 23, 531-557.
37.
Tittle, C.R., Ward, D.A., & Grasmick, H.G. (2003). Self-control and crime/ deviance: Cognitive vs. behavioral measures. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19, 333-365.
38.
Tittle, C.R., Ward, D.A., & Grasmick, H.G. (2004). Capacity for self-control and individuals’ interest in exercising self-control. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 20, 143-172.
39.
Vaughan, D. ( 1996). The Challenger launch decision. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
40.
Winfree, L.T., & Bernet, F.B. ( 1998). Social learning, self-control, and substance abuse by eight grade students: A tale of two cities. Journal of Drug Issues, 28, 539-558.
