Elsevier

Journal of Criminal Justice

Volume 39, Issue 2, March–April 2011, Pages 169-174
Journal of Criminal Justice

Does victimization reduce self-control? A longitudinal analysis

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.01.005Get rights and content

Abstract

Purpose

To examine the effect of victimization on self-control.

Method

Five waves of data from the GREAT survey are analyzed; the effect of prior victimization on subsequent self-control is estimated using the dynamic panel generalized-method of moments.

Results

Victimization reduces subsequent self-control in the near term.

Conclusions

The findings point to another source of low self-control, help to explain why prior victimization is linked to subsequent victimization, and provide support for general strain theory – which predicts that strains such as victimization will reduce self-control.

Research highlights

► The effect of victimization on self-control is examined using longitudinal data. ► Victimization reduces subsequent self-control in the near term. ► Results support general strain theory.

Introduction

There is now little doubt that low self-control is a major cause of crime (Goode, 2008, Pratt and Cullen, 2000). Recent research suggests that it may also be an important predictor of victimization (Childs et al., 2009, Higgins et al., 2009, Nofziger, 2009, Piquero et al., 2005, Schreck, 1999, Schreck et al., 2006, Stewart et al., 2004, Sullivan et al., 2007). This is not surprising when one considers the traits that comprise low self-control, such as impulsivity, an attraction to risky activities, and irritability (see Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990, Grasmick et al., 1993). Individuals with these traits are more likely to provoke others, fail to take precautions, and frequent dangerous places. The research on self-control and victimization, however, has generally failed to consider the possibility that victimization may reduce self-control. This is the case even though such an effect is predicted by general strain theory (Agnew, 1995, Agnew, 2006; also see Colvin, 2000). Strains such as victimization are said to at least temporarily reduce the ability of people to manage their desires and emotions – thus reducing self-control.

It is important to examine the effect of victimization on self-control for several reasons. Doing so will help to clarify the relationship between these variables. In particular, certain prior research may have exaggerated the effect of self-control on victimization since it failed to consider the possibility that victimization also affects self-control. Examining the effect of victimization may also point to another source of low self-control. While researchers have found that self-control is influenced by several factors, it is still the case that most of the variance in self-control remains unexplained (e.g. Cauffman et al., 2005, Goode, 2008, Latimore et al., 2006, Meldrum, 2008, Pratt and Cullen, 2000, Teasdale and Silver, 2009). Further, examining this effect may shed light on a central issue in the victimization research: the explanation of why prior victimization increases the likelihood of subsequent victimization (see especially Ousey et al., 2008, Ruback and Thompson, 2001). If victimization reduces self-control, this suggests that at least some crime victims develop traits that increase the likelihood of further victimization. Finally, examining the effect of victimization allows us to test a key argument in general strain theory: strains of a certain type – such as victimization – reduce levels of self-control.

This paper examines the effect of victimization on self-control using five waves of panel data from the Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT) evaluation survey. This effect is estimated using the dynamic panel generalized-method of moments (GMM) framework (see Arellano and Bover, 1995, Blundell and Bond, 1998, Ousey et al., 2008). This method is especially well suited for analyzing the type of panel data we employ, avoiding certain of the potential biases associated with both fixed- and random-effects models. We next (1) provide a brief overview of self-control theory; (2) review the research on self-control and victimization; (3) argue that victimization reduces self-control, drawing primarily on general strain theory; and (4) describe our test of this argument.

Section snippets

Self-control theory

Self-control theory assumes that people are naturally inclined to satisfy their needs and desires in the most expedient manner possible, including crime. People must learn to exercise self-control, and this learning is said to occur in the early family environment. Parents teach their children to exercise self-control by monitoring their behavior and consistently sanctioning deviance. An individual's level of self-control is said to be established by age seven or eight and to be relatively

Data

We employ survey data from the five waves of the Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT) program assessment, conducted between 1995–1999.1 Data were collected in the Spring of 1995 and annually in the Autumn thereafter. The sample includes six cities – Las Cruces (NM); Lincoln (NE); Omaha (NE); Phoenix (AZ); Philadelphia, (PA); and Portland, (OR). These cities were

Correlations

Table 1 shows the Wave 1 correlations between self-control, victimization, parental attachment, parental monitoring, delinquent peers, school attachment, safe neighborhood, and year.6 As expected, the table reveals that victimization is positively correlated with low self-control (r = .162; p = .001). The other correlations are also as expected. For example, low self-control is more common among those who associate with delinquent peers, are weakly attached

Discussion and conclusions

Consistent with the predictions of GST, our study reveals that victimization reduces self-control in the near term. This is not to deny that self-control affects victimization. This study, in combination with the research cited above, suggests that victimization and self-control have a reciprocal relationship with one another. The effect of victimization on self-control, however, has generally been ignored in previous research. This effect is important for several reasons. It points to another

References (60)

  • S.W. Baron

    General strain, street youth and crime: A test of Agnew's revised theory

    Criminology

    (2004)
  • R.F. Baumeister et al.

    The strength model of self-control

    Current Directions in Psychological Science

    (2007)
  • K.M. Beaver et al.

    Self-control as an executive function: Reformulating Gottfredson and Hirschi's parental socialization thesis

    Criminal Justice and Behavior

    (2007)
  • R. Blundell et al.

    Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models

    Journal of Econometrics

    (1998)
  • C.H. Burt et al.

    A longitudinal test of the effects of parenting and the stability of self-control: Negative evidence for the general theory of crime

    Criminology

    (2006)
  • E. Cauffman et al.

    Psychological, neuropsychological and physiological correlates of serious antisocial behavior in adolescence: The role of self-control

    Criminology

    (2005)
  • C.L. Chapple

    Self-control, peer relations, and delinquency

    Justice Quarterly

    (2005)
  • K.K. Childs et al.

    Self-control, gang membership, and victimization: An integrated approach

    Journal of Ctrime & Justice

    (2009)
  • M. Colvin

    Crime & coercion: An integrated theory of chronic criminality

    (2000)
  • F.-A. Esbensen

    Evaluation of the gang resistance education and training (GREAT) program in the United States, 1995–1999

  • F.-A. Esbensen et al.

    How great is G.R.E.A.T.? Results from a longitudinal quasi-experimental design

    Criminology & Public Policy

    (2001)
  • T.D. Evans et al.

    Social consequences of self-sontrol: testing the general theory of crime

    Criminology

    (1997)
  • D.R. Forde et al.

    Risky lifestyles, routine activities, and the general theory of crime

    Justice Quarterly

    (1997)
  • M.T. Gailliot et al.

    Self-regulation

  • Erich Goode

    Out of control: Assessing the general theory of crime

    (2008)
  • M.R. Gottfredson et al.

    A general theory of crime

    (1990)
  • H.G. Grasmick et al.

    Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime

    Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency

    (1993)
  • C. Hay

    Parenting, low self-control, and delinquency: A test of self-control theory

    Criminology

    (2001)
  • C. Hay et al.

    The development of self-control: Examining self-control theory's stability thesis

    Criminology

    (2006)
  • C. Hay et al.

    Self-control theory and the concept of opportunity: The case for a more systematic union

    Criminology

    (2008)
  • Cited by (0)

    Note: The middle four authors should be viewed as equal contributors to the paper.

    View full text