The Gendered Analysis of Self-Control on Theft and Violent Delinquency

Abstract

Despite previous gender-based studies of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s self-control theory, limited empirical attempts have been made outside of the Western hemisphere. This study is set to examine the cross-cultural and/or national boundaries generalizability of the self-control concepts in predicting gender differences on theft and violent delinquency in a rarely examined Hong Kong adolescent population. In addition, this study is among the first to investigate the age-effect gender differences on delinquency in the East. Using a cross-sectional design, 1,377 randomly selected native-Chinese secondary school–aged male and female adolescents of nine stratified randomly selected schools were surveyed. Multivariate analyses were used to examine gender differences, with and without controlling for the adolescent age, aside from the general offending propensity among Hong Kong adolescents with respect to their self-control level. Overall findings suggest that the relationship between low self-control indicators and types of delinquency differs across gender. Hence, findings of previous gender-based self-control studies conducted in the West are generally supported in this study. Implications, limitations, and future research directions are outlined.

Keywords

self-control adolescent gender delinquency Hong Kong Chinese

The self-control theory (SCT; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), also widely known as the general theory of crime, has been one of the most influential criminological theories over the past decade (see Pratt & Cullen, 2000). Despite challenges to the theory both theoretically (e.g., Bartusch, Lynam, Moffitt, & Silva, 1997; Paternoster & Brame, 1997) and methodologically on how the key self-control concepts should be measured (e.g., Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, & Arneklev, 1993; Longshore, Turner, & Stein, 1996), SCT continues to exert substantial influence in the criminological and related fields. Scholarly citations have been nearly 3,000 times and been the focus of more than 200 studies (Beaver, DeLisi, Mears, & Stewart, 2009), with most empirical tests find strong and consistent support for the theory (Pratt & Cullen, 2000; with exceptions, for example, Benson & Moore, 1992; Brownfield & Sorenson, 1993; Polakowski, 1994) regardless of whether self-control is measured behaviorally or attitudinally (Evans, Cullen, Burton, Dunaway, & Benson, 1997; Tittle, Ward, & Grasmick, 2003a). Pratt and Cullen (2000) hence concluded that self-control is “one of the strongest known correlates of crime” (p. 952).

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) contended that low self-control is the cause of criminal conduct and other deviant behaviors where crime is an “act of force or fraud … undertaken in the pursuit of self-interest” (p. 15). Simply put, “people who engage in crime are people who tend to neglect long-term consequences. They are, or tend to be, children of the moment. They have what we call low self-control” (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 2001, p. 90). Hirschi (2004) has recently redefined self-control, taken on the measurement-of-self-control issue, as “the tendency to consider the full range of potential costs of a particular act [which] moves the focus from the long-term implications of the act to its broader and often contemporaneous implications” (p. 543, italics in original). Self-control, once formed between ages 6 and 10 (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) through parental and other responsible adult socialization efforts (Hay, 2001; Pratt, Turner, & Piquero, 2004), is believed to be fairly stable over the life span (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1994; Kerley, Xu, & Sirisunyaluck, 2008) across individuals regardless of demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, age, culture, and social class; Vazsonyi & Klanjsek, 2008).

As one of their key theoretical propositions, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) asserted that males possess lower self-control than females, and this gender difference in delinquent and criminal behaviors appear to be invariant over time and place. According to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), “cultural variability is not important in the causation of crime, that we should look for constancy rather than variability in the definition of and causation of crime” (p. 175). Nevertheless, most of the past research that examined the gender differences in self-control (e.g., Arneklev, Grasmick, Tittle, & Bursik, 1993; Burton, Cullen, Evans, Alarid, & Dunaway, 1998; Gibson, Ward, Wright, Beaver, & DeLisi, 2010; Keane, Maxim, & Teevan, 1993; LaGrange & Silverman, 1999; Nagin & Paternoster, 1993; Tittle, Ward, & Grasmick, 2003b; Wood, Pfefferbaum, & Arneklev, 1993) were conducted in the Western hemisphere, particularly within the United States. Although there were studies, yet limited, testing self-control variables conducted in the East (e.g., Cheung & Cheung, 2008, 2010; Hwang & Akers, 2003; Kerley et al., 2008; Vazsonyi, Wittekind, Belliston, & Van Loh, 2004; Wang, Qiao, Hong, & Zhang, 2002; Yun & Walsh, 2011), but not all tested all six self-control elements as Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) originally formulated, let alone the gender differences of self-control. Hence, the gender-based study of self-control remains largely unexplored in the East.

With exception of the work by Cheung and Cheung (2008, 2010),¹ Gottfredson and Hirschi’s self-control constructs have rarely been thoroughly examined for gender differences in an Asian population of native-Chinese descent. The present investigation further extended empirical tests of SCT in the East. More specifically, this study examined the gender differences of self-control–deviance relationship in a representative sample of Hong Kong adolescents. Most importantly, the present study is among the first few studies, if there is any, to investigate the age-effect gender differences of self-control between early and late Hong Kong adolescents on juvenile minor property and violent delinquency. Hence, this study serves as an important piece of work for the advancement of scientific knowledge especially in the realm of the SCT. Before the details of the present study are presented, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s SCT and relevant findings in the gender-based differences of self-control on delinquency and crime will be reviewed below.

Literature Review

The central thesis of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) SCT is that individuals lacking in self-control are predisposed toward delinquent and criminal behavior that may lead to criminal and analogous actions. There are three major constructs in their theory: socialization, self-control, and opportunity. Low self-control is regarded as a continuous unidimensional trait with six elements: (a) impulsivity, (b) preference for simple rather than complex tasks, (c) risk-seeking behavior, (d) preference for physical rather than cerebral activities, (e) self-centered orientation, and (f) a volatile temper linked to a low tolerance for frustration (Muraven, Pogarsky, & Shmueli, 2006; Piquero & Rosay, 1998).

According to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1989, 1990), parental or caregiver socialization with the child is a major factor in influencing the child’s level of self-control development.² Successful parent–child socialization will lead to a high level of self-control of the child, which will keep the child away from behaviors that can have harmful outcomes (Blackwell & Piquero, 2005; Hirschi & Gottfredson, 2001; Nofziger, 2008; Vazsonyi & Klanjsek, 2008). Conversely, inadequate child-rearing practices in the first decade of life will fail to produce a child with self-control. Self-control, however, does not in itself lead inevitably to criminality, but “in the absence of socialization the child will tend to be high on crime potential” (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1989, p. 61, italics in original).

Individuals with low self-control are in high likelihood to pursue for immediate and easy gratification (Hechter & Kanazawa, 1997; Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1993, 1994; Nofziger, 2008), which may impede their educational and occupational success, destroy constructive interpersonal relationship, and undermine health and well-being (Gibson, Wright, & Tibbetts, 2000). Low self-control is also a major determining factor in the involvement of deviant peer groups (Rebellon, Straus, & Medeiros, 2008; Schreck, Stewart, & Fisher, 2006).

According to Özbay and Koksoy (2009), the lower one’s self-control, the greater the propensity of one’s will to commit criminal activities. In addition, offenders with low self-control are more likely to reoffend (DeLisi, 2001; Langton, 2006), especially those who started their criminal careers early in life (Benda, 2003). Besides offending behavior, low self-control also predicts victimization (Stewart, Elifson, & Sterk, 2004). Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argued that offending and victimization are closely related because both shared the manifestations of the same underlying trait of low self-control.

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) asserted that “in our view, lack of self-control does not require crime but can be counteracted by situational conditions” (p. 89). Opportunity is theoretically important in the sense that the individuals’ involvement in crime is not completely determined by the degree of self-control (Nofziger, 2008). Thus, individuals with low self-control need to have situational opportunities to successfully perform the criminal act. In concordance with readily available opportunities, individuals with low self-control are more likely, but not certain, to engage in all sorts of deviant or criminal behaviors (Muraven et al., 2006; Piquero, MacDonald, Dobrin, Daigle, & Cullen, 2005).

Gender and Self-Control

Gender differences in crime rates are widely acknowledged with males showing higher propensity and frequency than females in committing delinquent and criminal acts (e.g., Steffensmeier & Allan, 2000; Tittle & Paternoster, 2000). Originally, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) acknowledged this gender gap as differences in self-control. Indeed, they predicted a “substantial self-control difference between the sexes” (p. 147). Parenting practices are generally differentiated by the gender of the child, where differential occurs in the practices of direct supervision and socialization of children. They contended that to produce children with higher levels of self-control, adequate child-rearing practices need to meet the minimum conditions where “someone must (1) monitor the child’s behavior; (2) actually practice surveillance, (3) recognize deviant behavior when it occurs; and (4) punish or disapprove such behavior” (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990, p. 97).

Given that the development of self-control is associated directly with early childhood development, differential gender socialization according to societal norms is among the primary factors for the gender gap. Differential in social control (supervision and punishment for misbehavior) and opportunity are the influencing factors for gender differences in delinquent behavior (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). According to Heimer and DeCoster (1999), females are perceived to be more dependent on social approval, and thus, caregivers are generally more concerned with the effective socialization (behavioral monitoring) of females than of males (see also Blackwell & Piquero, 2005). In traditional patriarchal families, Hagan (1989) argued that females are typically socialized to be passive and submissive individuals, while males are generally taught to be independent risk takers.

From a feminist perspective, Miller and Burack (1993) argued that SCT fails to acknowledge the pervasive gender–power imbalance within society. They criticized that the theory uses a gender-neutral language when discussing parenting or victimization perspectives and ignores the way lives are gendered in society, especially victimization experiences are heavily patterned by gender. Feminist criminologists (e.g., Chesney-Lind, 1989; Daly & Chesney-Lind, 1988), in general, contended that female crime participation is mainly shaped by the societal enforcement of gender-hierarchical social roles that is shown in the differential gender socialization methods. Recent work by Nofziger (2010) remarkably found that self-control is not directly linked to sex, but instead gender identity where gender socialization practices that develop feminine traits, typically among females, produce greater self-control.

Besides differential socialization methods, situational opportunity differences may also be a leading factor in gender-stratified offending. A substantial body of literature has found support that intensive parental supervision and socialization practices predict low level of delinquency (e.g., Huebner & Betts, 2002; Rankin & Kern, 1994). Compared with males, females are likely to be more closely monitored throughout childhood and into adulthood (Tittle et al., 2003a), which likely to lead to females having fewer opportunities to engage in deviance than males (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990).

Gender-Based Research of Self-Control on Delinquency and Crime

Since the SCT was formulated by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), numerous attempts have been made to either validate or challenge their theoretical propositions to account for gender-based differences. These studies examined the SCT on delinquency and have used gender as a control variable (e.g., Arneklev et al., 1993; Cochran, Wood, Sellers, Wikerson, & Chamlin, 1998; Grasmick et al., 1993; Nakhaie, Silverman, & LaGrange, 2000; Piquero & Tibbetts, 1996), have tested the gender effect of self-control on delinquent behavior (e.g., Burton et al., 1998; Caspi et al., 1994; Cheung & Cheung, 2010; Gibbs, Giever, & Martin, 1998; LaGrange & Silverman, 1999; Tittle et al., 2003a), and have examined the gender disparities in self-control scores (e.g., Keane et al., 1993). However, mixed findings were found in these studies. Although there were studies that have found substantial gender effects of self-control on delinquent and criminal behavior (e.g., Burton et al., 1998; Gibbs et al., 1998; Keane et al., 1993; LaGrange & Silverman, 1999; Mason & Windle, 2002), this condition nonetheless calls into question the universality of SCT that claimed to be a “general” theory of crime, which accounts for “all crime, at all times” (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990, p. 117) regardless of individual differences.

Notably, Piquero, MacIntosh, and Hickman (2000) asserted that the support or refutation of the gendered effect claim largely depends on the self-control measures. Such effect may be misleading if the instrument used is assessing self-control differently across gender (see Gibson et al., 2010). Most of the past gender studies in self-control on delinquency and crime have failed to demonstrate whether the self-control measures are valid and reliable for both genders (Gibson et al., 2010; Higgins, 2007; Piquero et al., 2000; Piquero & Rosay, 1998).

In terms of the applicability of the SCT across national and cultural boundaries, Vazsonyi (2003) stated that comparative criminology is simply a method that can be effectively used to replicate and generalize theoretical propositions and findings rather than a substantive discipline by its own. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) claimed that the low self-control–deviance relationship is universal and should be replicable across cultural and national boundaries. Although there were attempts to test SCT with population outside of the North America and Europe, namely, the Asian population in their native countries (e.g., Cheung & Cheung, 2008, 2010; Hwang & Akers, 2003; Kerley et al., 2008; Vazsonyi et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2002; Yun & Walsh, 2011); studies of self-control on delinquency and crime in the East are still lacking compared with the voluminous studies conducted in the West. Thus, the issue of sufficient cross-cultural and national boundaries generalizability of this theory is called to question. Most importantly, to the authors’ knowledge, limited gender-based self-control studies on delinquency and crime were conducted with the Asian population.

Present Study

The present study aims to address the shortcomings of past research and contribute to the literature. As one of a very few empirical studies examining Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) SCT in an Asian population of native-Chinese descent (see Cheung & Cheung, 2008, 2010; Wang et al., 2002 for examples), this study is the first attempt to examine all six Gottfredson and Hirschi’s low self-control indicators without the incorporation of other theoretical constructs into the model to test gender differences of two types of juvenile delinquency (minor property and violent delinquency) in the Hong Kong adolescent population. Most notably, the present research is a pioneer in studying gender differences of Hong Kong adolescents’ self-control when controlling for their age.

Using a geographically representative sample of Hong Kong adolescents, this study is designed to test gender differences of self-control on delinquency, with and without controlling for the adolescents’ age. One of the most widely used self-control scales—Grasmick et al.’s scale (1993)—was used to measure the adolescents’ self-control level. Upon data collection, this study used the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression modeling approach to examine the possibility of significant gender differences, with and without controlling for the adolescents’ age, in the relationship between different low self-control indicators and two distinct types of delinquency. Based on the above literature, the present study addresses the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Hong Kong adolescents in this sample differed with respect to the six low self-control indicator levels in relation to the commission of theft and violent crime.

Hypothesis 2: There are gender disparities in relation to low self-control indicators and types of delinquency.

Hypothesis 3: There are gender disparities even after controlling for the adolescent age.

Data and Method

Sample

Hong Kong is a special administrative region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China with approximately 95% of the people being of Chinese descent. Hong Kong is a melting pot with substantial Western influences and often described as a place where “East meets West” tracing its history back to the British colonial time. People in Hong Kong generally balance their Western modernized way of life with traditional Chinese cultural practices.

This cross-sectional data were supported by the Hong Kong Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA), Hong Kong. YWCA is one of the primary nongovernmental organizations in Hong Kong to provide school social work services via the station of at least one registered social worker at each school. Twelve schools sponsored by YWCA (i.e., 3 schools in the Hong Kong Island, 4 schools in the Kowloon Peninsula, and 5 schools in the New Territories) were willing to partake in the present study. The response rate was close to 70% of those schools being approached for this study.

Next, stratified random sampling method was used to select three schools from each region once this study was approved by the university’s institutional review board (IRB). Upon the approval from each school administrator, anonymous paper/pencil questionnaire was administered to willing participants who were randomly selected within each school in their respective school. The response rate was about 80% of those randomly selected participants. Parental and participants’ informed consent was obtained with no monetary rewards upon participation and their participation was completely on a voluntary basis. A sample of 1,377 students (666 males [48.4%] and 711 females [51.6%]) who were mainly in the secondary education level of Form 1 (31.3%; equivalent to the sixth/seventh grade in the United States), Form 2 (30.8%; equivalent to the seventh/eighth grade in the United States), and Form 3 (28.8%/equivalent to the eighth/ninth grade in the United States) on the day of data collection were included in the sample.

Although secondary school samples were not as delinquent as incarcerated samples particularly with respect to serious delinquency (see, Cernkovich, Giordano, & Pugh, 1985), adolescents were nonetheless reported to have significant levels of involvement in various delinquent activities (Hindelang, Hirschi, & Weis, 1981). Scholars (e.g., Tittle & Grasmick, 1997; Tittle & Ward, 1993) asserted that delinquency for most nonpersistent offenders typically begins to increase after age 13, surge to the peak at age 17; and decline thereafter. Hence, secondary school samples selected for the present study are useful to identify the offending dynamics of adolescents in their prime years of delinquency.

A summary of sample demographic characteristics on gender, age, age group, and secondary educational level is presented in Table 1. Overall, participants ranged from age 12 to 17 (M = 14.35, SD = 1.19). The average age of males (M = 14.34, SD = 1.19) and females (M = 14.37, SD = 1.19) was virtually identical, t(1374) = –.45, ns. Two distinct age groups were created: early adolescence (age 12 to 14) and late adolescence (age 15 to 17). The gender distribution in these age groups was relatively equal (47.4% of males and 52.2% of females in early adolescence and 49.7% of males and 50.3% of females in late adolescence) and thus made the findings of age-effect gender differences analyses more convincing.

Table 1.

Sample Demographic Characteristics.

Variables	Number of cases	% total (100%)
Gender (N = 1,377)
Male	666	48.4
Female	711	51.6
Age (n = 1,376)
12	27	2.0
13	322	23.4
14	484	35.2
15	324	23.5
16	119	8.6
17	100	7.3
Age group (n = 1,376)
Early adolescence (age 12 to 14)	833	60.5
Late adolescence (age 15 to 17)	543	39.5
Secondary education level (n = 1,342)
Form 1	420	31.3
Form 2	414	30.8
Form 3	386	28.8
Form 4	95	7.1
Form 5	25	1.9
Form 6	2	0.1

The participants’ education level was nearly identical across sex, t(1340) = −1.09, ns (51.7% of males and 48.3% of females in Form 1, 44.7% of males and 55.3% of females in Form 2, 51% of males and 49% of females in Form 3, and 52.6% of males and 47.4% of females in Form 4). Hence, this study of sex differences has sufficient potential to generalize to the Hong Kong secondary educated adolescent population.

Measures

Two measures were used in this study: Delinquency and Low Self-Control scales. For the Delinquency scale, two measures of delinquency—theft and violent crime—were selected to assess the participants’ propensity to commit theft and violent crime in three observed measures each (see Table 2 for a description of these items). Theft was measured in three items in varying severity of minor property crime, while violent crime was measured in three items in varying aspects of interpersonal violence. A single observed variable for each type of delinquency was created to measure the frequency and severity of theft and violent crime, independently. The composite theft and violent crime variables are highly skewed (about half of the sample never commit theft and violent crime); therefore, logged theft and violent crime variables were generated to more closely approximate a normal distribution. This Delinquency scale has yielded high internal consistency in previous studies (e.g., Chapple, McQuillan, & Berdahl, 2005), and with no exception in the present study (.76 for theft and .69 for violent crime).

Table 2.

Means and Variances for the Observed Variables: Gender Differences.

	All sample (N = 1,377)			Males (n = 666)			Females (n = 711)
Item description^a	M	SD	Variance	M	SD	Variance	M	SD	Variance
Delinquency Scale
Theft (Cronbach’s α = .764 [.764 for males and .736 for females])
Have you ever
Taken things or larger value (>HK$500) that did not belong to you?^A	0.148	.517	.267	0.206***	.611	.373	0.082	.359	.129
Taken things or medium value (HK$20- HK$500) that did not belong to you?^A	0.397	.767	.589	0.489***	.847	.717	0.297	.655	.430
Taken little things (<HK$2) that did not belong to you?^A	0.665	.907	.822	0.788***	.990	.981	0.553	.803	.645
Combined theft measure^A	0.405	.621	.386	0.496***	.692	.478	0.311	.515	.265
Combined theft measure, logged^A	−0.160	.292	.086	−0.110*	.298	.089	−0.219	.271	.074
Violent Crime (Cronbach’s α = .694 [.763 for males and .598 for females])
Have you ever
Slapped, shoved, or hit another student at school?^A	0.735	.920	.846	0.920*	.978	.957	0.594	.843	.710
Used force to get something you wanted form another person?^A	0.313	.672	.451	0.389***	.756	.571	0.251	.584	.340
Beaten up someone (not a brother or sister) or hurt anyone on purpose?^A	0.335	.673	.453	0.415***	.746	.556	0.220	.504	.253
Combined violent crime measure^A	0.461	.605	.366	0.573***	.689	.474	0.357	.497	.247
Combined violent crime measure, logged^A	−0.168	.275	.076	−0.143***	.294	.086	−0.197	.248	.061
Self-Control Scale (Cronbach’s α = .862 [.883 for males and .837 for females])
Impulsivity (Cronbach’s α = .345 [.340 for males and for .320 females])
I always do whatever brings me pleasure here and now, even at the cost of some distant goal^B	2.512	.776	.601	2.484	.824	.032	2.530	.736	.028
I often act on the spur of the moment without stopping to think^B	2.133	.665	.442	2.070*	.712	.028	2.157	.598	.023
I’m more concerned with what happens to me in the short run than in the long run^B	2.168	.705	.497	2.144	.755	.029	2.178	.652	.024
I don’t devote much thought and effort to preparing for the future^B	2.718	.816	.666	2.654**	.864	.034	2.775	.764	.029
Combined impulsivity measure^B	2.382	.434	.188	2.337**	.462	.018	2.410	.398	.015
Simple Tasks (Cronbach’s α = .732 [.738 for males and .734 for females])
When things get complicated, I tend to quit or withdraw^B	2.644	.789	.622	2.701	.804	.031	2.571**	.771	.029
I dislike really hard tasks that stretch my abilities to the limit^B	2.572	.820	.672	2.620	.854	.033	2.524*	.794	.030
The things in life that are easiest to do bring me the most pleasure^B	2.509	.860	.739	2.504	.901	.035	2.502	.832	.031
I frequently try to avoid projects that I know will be difficult^B	2.700	.766	.587	2.710	.807	.031	2.690	.730	.028
Combined simple tasks measure^B	2.607	.603	.364	2.635	.631	.025	2.572	.583	.022
Risk-Seeking (Cronbach’s α = .741 [.736 for females and .753 for females])
I sometimes find it exciting to do things for which I might get into trouble^B	2.772	.798	.637	2.657***	.827	.032	2.906	.755	.029
Excitement and adventure are more important to me than security^B	2.878	.838	.702	2.766***	.894	.035	2.979	.781	.029
Sometimes I will take a risk just for the fun of it^B	2.514	.876	.767	2.460*	.904	.035	2.553	.855	.032
I like to test myself every now and then by doing something a little risky^B	2.932	.858	.735	2.809***	.896	.035	2.997	.797	.030
Combined risk-seeking measure^B	2.774	.638	.400	2.671***	.660	.026	2.858	.605	.023
Physical Activities (Cronbach’s α = .499 [.496 for males and .516 for females])
If I had a choice, I would almost always rather do something physical than something mental^B	2.878	.837	.700	2.856	.870	.339	2.914	.812	.031
I like to get out and do things more than I like to read or contemplate ideas^B	2.467	.891	.794	2.466	.926	.036	2.460	.871	.033
I almost always feel better when I am on the move than when I am sitting and thinking^B	2.538	.853	.728	2.475*	.871	.034	2.573	.838	.032
Combined physical activities measure^B	2.629	.610	.372	2.600	.628	.024	2.651	.602	.023
Self-Centered (Cronbach’s α = .772 [.801 for males and .722 for females])
I will try to get the things I want even when I know it’s causing problems for other people^B	2.781	.761	.579	2.684***	.799	.031	2.902	.704	.027
I try to look out for myself first, even if it means making things difficult for other people^B	2.784	.750	.562	2.680***	.800	.031	2.870	.697	.026
If things I do upset people, it’s their problem, not mine^B	3.041	.785	.616	2.913***	.861	.033	3.190	.675	.025
I’m not very sympathetic to other people when they are having problems^B	2.956	.792	.627	2.836***	.864	.034	3.088	.699	.026
Combined self-centered measure^B	2.890	.594	.352	2.778***	.656	.025	3.012	.512	.019
Temper (Cronbach’s α = .619 [.680 for males and .576 for females])
Often, when I’m angry at people I feel more like hurting them than talking to them about why I am angry^B	2.972	.751	.564	2.905***	.778	.030	3.088	.683	.026
When I am really angry, other people better stay away from me^B	2.515	.856	.732	2.502	.893	.035	2.521	.826	.031
I lose my temper pretty easily^B	2.546	.860	.739	2.610	.889	.035	2.489**	.840	.032
When I have a serious disagreement with someone, it is usually hard for me to talk calmly about it without getting upset^B	2.673	.796	.634	2.639	.838	.033	2.692	.756	.029
Combined temper measure^B	2.675	.559	.313	2.661	.608	.024	2.698	.520	.020

Response categories are listed as follows: A (0 = never, 1 = once or twice, 2 = several times, 3 = many times). B (1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = disagree, 4 = strongly disagree).

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Although there have been considerable amount of debate as to the most reliable and valid method to measure the level of self-control (e.g., DeLisi, Hochstetler, & Murphy, 2003; Marcus, 2004; Piquero & Rosay, 1998), the self-report measure developed by Grasmick and colleagues (1993) is the most widely used self-control scale in the past decade (Tittle et al., 2003b). This 23-item composite scale, derived from a set of items with a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree with higher values indicating greater self-control, is based on Gottfredson and Hirschi’s original formulation of the six elements of self-control (see Table 2 for a description of these items). One item of this scale was eliminated by Grasmick et al. (1993), because it did not contribute well to the overall measure.

This self-control measure has not only provided consistent evidence of good construct validity and a consistent association with measures of deviance based on North American samples (e.g., Arneklev et al., 1993; DeLisi et al., 2003; Grasmick et al., 1993; Keane et al., 1993; Longshore & Turner, 1998; Muraven et al., 2006; Piquero & Rosay, 1998) and European samples (e.g., Romero, Gomez-Fraguela, Luengo, & Sobral, 2003; Vazsonyi & Klanjsek, 2008; Vazsonyi, Pickering, Junger, & Hessing, 2001) but also on the Asian sample (e.g., Vazsonyi et al., 2004), and across gender and other demographic characteristics (see Pratt & Cullen, 2000). Most importantly, the Grasmick et al.’s scale has been assessed for its reliability across gender (e.g., Gibson et al., 2010; Piquero & Rosay, 1998). Gibson and colleagues (2010) found supportive conclusion where Grasmick et al.’s scale and subscales are quite reliable for both males and females. However, Piquero and Rosay (1998) found the opposite. Though the scale and subscale reliabilities were better for males (Piquero & Rosay, 1998), these differences, nevertheless, were not substantial.

Items measuring self-control variables with gender means and Cronbach’s α differences are listed in Table 2. The overall interitem reliability of the Grasmick et al.’s self-control scale was .86 (.88 for males and .84 for females). This finding is consistent with past studies reporting on the reliability of Grasmick et al.’s scale (α ranging from .71 to .91; DeLisi et al., 2003; Gibson et al., 2010; Grasmick et al., 1993; Longshore et al., 1996; Piquero & Rosay, 1998). More importantly, the reliability of the 23-items self-control scale in this study was one of the highest among studies that were conducted with Asian adolescents. For instance, Cheung and Cheung’s (2008, 2010) 10-item scale used with Hong Kong adolescents had an alpha of .61, Vazsonyi and colleagues’ (2004) 22-item measure of self-control yielded a reliability of .81 for Japanese males and .78 for Japanese females, and Yun and Walsh’s (2011) 6-item self-control scale administered to Korean adolescents measured in five waves reached a reliability of .64, .65, .65, .64, and .65, respectively. In terms of the subscales, the magnitude of the interitem reliability for four self-control subscales were in acceptable ranges (ranging .62 to .77; .77 for Self-Centeredness, .74 for Risk-Seeking Behavior, .73 for Preference for Simple Tasks, and .62 for Volatile Temper), with exception of two remaining self-control subscales (.35 for Impulsivity and .50 for Preference for Physical Activities; see Cronbach, 1951, for the suggested rules of thumb on the interpretation of Cronbach’s α). Nevertheless, the subscales of Impulsivity and Preference for Physical Activities, as Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) originally suggested, were retained to examine the SCT comprehensively.

In the present data, the internal reliability of males and females are relatively similar for all self-control subscales and two types of delinquency measure (see Table 2 for details). Significant mean differences were indicated that male adolescents scored lower than female adolescents in subscales of Impulsivity, Risk-Seeking Behavior, Preference for Physical Activities, and Self-Centeredness. Female adolescents, in contrast, were more likely than adolescent males to prefer for simple over complex tasks. Yet, both male and female adolescents were relatively similar in having volatile temper. In terms of delinquency, males were significantly more likely than females to have committed theft and violent crime.

Analytic Strategy

The distributional characteristics of the study measures were tested prior to any statistical analyses. Some variables were recoded, and others were transformed to deal with outliers and skew. Adolescent age was recoded to test the possible age-effect in predicting theft and violent crime commission based on different self-control components.

OLS regression modeling was then used to answer the following questions: Do adolescents in this sample differ with respect to different levels of low self-control indicators? Are there gender disparities in self-control elements in predicting the propensity to commit theft and violent crime? Will these gender-based findings hold after controlling for the adolescent age?

Results

Multivariate analyses were used in three models to examine the relative importance of each self-control variable in the overall Hong Kong adolescent sample and gender differences, with and without controlling for the adolescent age, in theft and violent crime. OLS regression modeling approach was because of the continuous nature of dependent variables.

Effects of Differential Self-Control Elements on Theft and Violent Crime

The analysis began with the examination of bivariate relationships between self-control scale and subscales, and two types of delinquency. Table 3 indicates that self-control, in general, was significantly and negatively correlated with both theft (r = −.148) and violent delinquency (r = −.160; see Table 3 for details).

Table 3.

Gender Differences of Bivariate Correlations Between Self-Control Scale and Subscales, and Types of Delinquency.

	Theft (logged)			Violent crime (logged)
Self-Control Scale and Subscales	All sample (N = 1,377)	Males (n = 666)	Females (n = 711)	All sample (N = 1,377)	Males (n = 666)	Females (n = 711)
Self-Control	−.148***	−.159**	−.122*	−.160***	−.170***	−.136*
Impulsivity	−.119**	−.149**	−.037	−.068	−.051	−.078
Simple Tasks	−.046	−.127*	−.011	−.066	−.108*	−.035
Risk-Seeking	−.135**	−.127*	−.133*	−.147***	−.168**	−.108*
Physical Activities	−.108**	−.031	−.192**	−.087*	−.074	−.105
Self-Centered	−.165***	−.161**	−.112	−.175***	−.197***	−.110*
Temper	−.034	−.049	−.022	−.091*	−.090	−.097

p < .05.** p < .01.*** p < .001.

The overall findings on the propensity to commit theft and violent crime predicted by different self-control elements are reported in Table 4. In general, the nature of delinquency was predicted by different low self-control indicators. Notable trends have emerged. The probability of theft commission was significantly predicted by low self-control in the dimensions of high level of impulsivity (B = .084), risk-seeking behavior (B = .063), preference for physical activities (B = .053), and self-centeredness (B = .085). Violent delinquency, conversely, was significantly predicted by high level of risk-seeking behavior (B = .063), preference for physical activities (B = .040), self-centeredness (B = .082), and volatile temper (B = .044). Preference for simple tasks was not a significant predictor for both property and violent delinquency.

Table 4.

Effects of Differential Self-Control Elements on Theft and Violent Crime.

	Theft (logged)			Violent crime (logged)
Predictor variable	All sample (N = 1,377)	Males (n = 666)	Females (n = 711)	All sample (N = 1,377)	Males (n = 666)	Females (n = 711)
1. Impulsivity	B = .084, SE = .028**	B = .107, SE = .039**	B = .025, SE = .040	B = .043, SE = .034	B = .033, SE = .032	B = .047, SE = .033
2. Simple Tasks	B = .022, SE = .019	B = .063, SE = .027*	B = .005, SE = .027	B = .030, SE = .016	B = .051, SE = .023*	B = .014, SE = .023
3. Risk-Seeking	B = .063, SE = .018**	B = .059, SE = .025*	B = .058, SE = .025*	B = .063, SE = .015***	B = .076, SE = .022**	B = .041, SE = .021*
4. Physical Activities	B = .053, SE = .019**	B = .069, SE = .029	B = .083, SE = .025**	B = .040, SE = .016*	B = .036, SE = .024	B = .043, SE = .022
5. Self-Centered	B = .085, SE = .020***	B = .080, SE = .027**	B = .059, SE = .031	B = .082, SE = .017***	B = .092, SE = .023***	B = .053, SE = .026*
6. Temper	B = .017, SE = .020	B = .024, SE = .028	B = .011, SE = .029	B = .044, SE = .017*	B = .044, SE = .024	B = .045, SE = .025

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Gender Differences in the Effects of Differential Self-Control Elements

In terms of gendered analysis, adolescent males’ self-control was significantly and negatively correlated with theft (r = −.159) and violent conducts (r = .170). Likewise, a similar trend was also seen in adolescent females where self-control had a significantly negative correlation with both theft (r = −.122) and violent acts (r = −.136; see Table 3 for details).

When controlling for the adolescent gender, different trends in the effects of low self-control indicators were emerged for theft and violent crime (see Table 4). Male adolescents’ low self-control in the sense of an increase in the level of impulsivity (B = .107), preference for simple tasks (B = .063), risk-seeking behavior (B = .059), and self-centeredness (B = .080) are likely to increase the probability to commit theft. In sharp contrast, only the increase in the level of risk-seeking behavior (B = .058) and preference for physical activities (B = .083) are likely to increase the female adolescents’ propensity to commit minor property crime.

In terms of the violent delinquency predictability, gender differences in self-control components were found. The increase in the level of male adolescents’ preference for simple tasks (B = .051), risk-seeking behavior (B = .076), and self-centeredness (B = .092) leads to an increase in the likelihood of committing a violent crime. In sharp contrast, an increase in the level of risk-seeking behavior (B = .041) and self-centeredness (B = .053) in female adolescents are the only two correlates that are likely to increase the probability of committing violent acts. Of note, volatile temper was found to have no significant predictive effect on both male and female adolescents’ propensity to commit theft and violent crime.

Age-Effect Gender Differences of Differential Self-Control Elements

In general, results indicate that there are significant age-effect gender differences of different low self-control indicators on theft (see Table 5). Remarkably, only early female adolescents and late male adolescents were found to have significant findings. The level of impulsivity (B = .111), risk-seeking behavior (B = .109), preference for physical activities (B = .115), and self-centeredness (B = .110) of early female adolescents were significantly and positively associated with the likelihood of committing minor property crimes, where an increase in the level in these indicators is likely to lead to the increase of theft commission propensity. Conversely, late male adolescents’ level of impulsivity (B = .168), preference for simple tasks (B = .108), risk-seeking behavior (B = .081), and self-centeredness (B = .125) were significantly and positively related to theft commission. Again, volatile temper was not a significant predictor of theft commission after controlling for the adolescent age.

Table 5.

Age-Effect Gender Differences of Differential Self-Control Elements on Theft and Violent Crime

	Theft				Violent crime
	Early adolescence (age 12-14)		Late adolescence (age 15-17)		Early adolescence (age 12-14)		Late adolescence (age 15-17)
Predictor variable	Males (n = 395)	Females (n = 438)	Males (n = 270)	Females (n = 273)	Males (n = 395)	Females (n = 438)	Males (n = 270)	Females(n = 273)
1. Impulsivity	B = .055, SE = .050	B = .111, SE = .050*	B = .168, SE = .063**	B = −.094, SE = .064	B = .013, SE = .043	B = .087, SE = .041*	B = .056, SE = .048	B = −.020, SE = .054
2. Simple Tasks	B = .027, SE = .034	B = .042, SE = .033	B = .108, SE = .044*	B = −.048, SE = .045	B = .068, SE = .029*	B = .054, SE = .028	B = .028, SE = .037	B = −.043, SE = .038
3. Risk-Seeking	B = .044, SE = .032	B = .109, SE = .032**	B = .081, SE = .041*	B = −.009, SE = .041	B = .089, SE = .028**	B = .062, SE = .025*	B = .058, SE = .035	B = .006, SE = .035
4. Physical Activities	B = .026, SE = .036	B = .115, SE = .031***	B = .070, SE = .048	B = .042, SE = .040	B = .044, SE = .031	B = .050, SE = .026	B = .023, SE = .036	B = .033, SE = .039
5. Self-Centered	B = .052, SE = .034	B = .110, SE = .040**	B = .125, SE = .044**	B = −.001, SE = .047	B = .121, SE = .029***	B = .085, SE = .034*	B = .057, SE = .036	B = .002, SE = .041
6. Temper	B = .010,SE = .034	B = .022, SE = .036	B = .055, SE = .046	B = −.001, SE = .048	B = .091, SE = .031**	B = .061, SE = .030*	B = −.014, SE = .038	B = .007, SE = .045

p < .05.**p < .01.***p < .001.

Findings in Table 5 also indicate the age-effect gender disparities of different self-control elements on the commission of violent acts among adolescents. Unlike the theft commission propensity, a different gendered profile has emerged for violent delinquency predictability after controlling for the adolescent age. Only early adolescents of both genders yielded significant findings. For early male adolescents, the increase in the level of preference for simple tasks (B = .068), risk-seeking behavior (B = .089), self-centeredness (B = .121), and volatile temper (B = .091) were significantly likely to increase the propensity to commit a violent crime. In a different profile, the increase in early female adolescents’ impulsivity (B = .087), risk-seeking behavior (B = .062), self-centeredness (B = .085), and volatile temper (B = .061) levels were significantly likely to increase the probability to commit a violent crime. Interestingly, volatile temper was only found to be a significant predictor of violent delinquency for early adolescents of both genders.

Discussion

In Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) SCT, the propensity to engage in delinquent and criminal conduct is believed to be mainly a function of individual differences in self-control. Gottfredson (2006) concluded that self-control is the “most important individual-difference cause of crime and delinquency” (p. 83). This proposition is claimed to be independent of gender, age, culture, or other demographic characteristics, and the relationship should exist regardless of individual differences.

The purpose of this study was threefold: (a) to examine whether Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) theoretical propositions are applicable across cultural and national boundaries, (b) to test the gender disparities in self-control on two types of delinquency among Hong Kong adolescents, and (c) to investigate if the gendered findings hold after controlling for the adolescent age. Several key findings emerged besides Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) contention is strongly supported where low self-control was significantly correlated with the commission of theft and violent delinquency, and this finding holds across gender. This finding is consistent with previous work by Cheung and Cheung (2008) on Hong Kong secondary school adolescents.

Notably, apart from being significantly more involvement in theft and violent conducts, adolescent males were also generally having significantly lower self-control than adolescent females, in the areas of impulsivity, risk-seeking, and self-centeredness. This finding is partially supporting Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) contention that males are generally having lower self-control than females and is consistent with recent studies conducted in the East (e.g., Cheung & Cheung, 2010; Vazsonyi et al., 2004). For this reason, it makes sense that Hong Kong criminal justice system is more punitive against males than females where detention facilities or interventions for young offenders available in Hong Kong mostly cater to male delinquents than their female counterparts (Chui, 1999, 2005).

Next, in terms of the predictive power of six low self-control indicators on theft and violent delinquency, only partial support was found in the Hong Kong adolescent population for the cross-cultural and national boundaries claim by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990). Impulsivity, risk-seeking behavior, preference for physical activities, and self-centeredness were significant predictors of minor property crime commission. The propensity to engage in violent delinquency, however, was only significantly predicted by risk-seeking behavior, preference for physical activities, self-centeredness, and volatile temper.

When gender is controlled, preference for risk-seeking behavior was found to be the strongest significant predictor across gender and types of delinquency. This finding is consistent, for instance, with the work by LaGrange and Silverman (1999) where risk-seeking was also found to be the most influential predictor for both property and violent offenses across gender. Being self-centered was significantly predicting the propensity to commit both theft and violent acts for male adolescents, but only applied to violent delinquency for female adolescents. Interestingly, impulsivity, preference for simple tasks, and volatile temper were not significant in predicting both theft and violent delinquency among female adolescents. For adolescent males, however, preference for physical activities and volatile temper had no significant effect in predicting minor property and violent delinquency.

The present analyses shed light on self-control differences for adolescent males and females after controlling for their age that prior studies have rarely considered. Remarkably, different gendered profiles emerged. Self-control was found to have significant predictive effect for only early adolescent females on both types of delinquency. No significant self-control effect on theft and violent conducts was found among late adolescent females. For adolescent males of all ages, interesting trends were found. Self-control of early adolescent males was found to have significant effect only in predicting violent delinquency. Conversely, late adolescent males’ self-control was only significantly predicted theft commission.

With regard to the implications of the findings, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) once stressed that policies that would strengthen the family ties and particularly enhance the parent child-rearing practices would demonstrate positive outcomes of the child in long run. Gender-based findings in self-control and propensity to commit theft and violent delinquency found in this study may further alert parents of their differential in child-rearing practices across gender are likely to result in differential level of self-control development. In concurrence with Yun and Walsh’s (2011) suggestion of potential schooling practices can increase the self-control level of adolescents and thus reduce their propensity to commit delinquent acts. Personal developmental skill trainings in the areas such as delaying gratification, victim empathy, anger management, and unselfishness can potentially improve their level of self-control.

Potential Limitations and Future Directions

Despite the strengths of this study, the findings need to be interpreted cautiously in light of several potential caveats. First, the present study was cross-sectional in nature. Of particular importance to the SCT, this study takes Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) assertion on the stability of self-control across life span for granted without skepticism. Though they acknowledged the general persistence of the self-control level, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) also recognized the potential changes in the level of self-control over time. They noted, “The low self-control group continues over time to exhibit low self-control. Its size, however, declines” (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990, p. 108, italics in original). Hence, cross-sectional research design, at its best, can only be interpreted in correlational and not causal term. For future work, longitudinal data are more adequate to examine the development of self-control in childhood and its stability effect of self-control over time on delinquency (see Turner & Piquero, 2002; Yun & Walsh, 2011). A similar suggestion was noted by Cheung and Cheung (2008) for longitudinal data to examine differential self-control stability between the Chinese and Western populations.

Another potential drawback of this study is the exclusion of the delinquency opportunity variable. As noted above, the individual’s propensity to engage in delinquent conducts is not solely determined by the degree of self-control. Situational opportunities play a critical role in facilitating individuals with low self-control to successfully perform the deviant act (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Muraven et al., 2006; Nofziger, 2008; Piquero et al., 2005). Grasmick and colleagues (1993) claimed that the opportunity to commit crime like social structure (e.g., Cohen & Felson, 1979) predicts criminal behavior, at least to a modest degree, regardless of the level of self-control. For instance, Chan, Heide, and Beauregard (2011) explained the importance of opportunity to occur even with a clear and strong motivation of an offender to commit a serious offense like sexual homicide (see also Chan & Heide, 2009). Past studies have also demonstrated that association with delinquent peers is another important situational predictor of delinquency as an effect of low self-control (e.g., Baron, 2003; Chapple, 2005; Gibson & Wright, 2001; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; McGloin & Shermer, 2009; Meldrum, Young, & Weerman, 2009). In addition, criminal opportunities are likely to be distinctive across gender (Burton et al., 1998; Steffensmeier, 1983). Therefore, the authors acknowledge the need to include the delinquency opportunity construct in their future examination of low self-control indicators on delinquency.

In conclusion, findings from the present study provide additional support for Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) SCT. Though some aspects were partially supported, this study nonetheless offers notable insights to the self-control theoretical realm particularly from a population beyond the North American and European regions that are rarely examined. Of particular importance, this study was the first to test the age-effect gender differences of self-control on two distinct types of delinquency among the secondary school–aged Hong Kong adolescents. Continued examination of these relationships with additional methodological efforts devoted to the improvement of measuring important self-control theoretical concepts will help provide a more complete understanding of human behavior in regard to issues of delinquency and crime, regardless of cultural and national boundaries.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the HKYWCA for offering assistance in collecting data and for granting them permission to use the data in this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Wing Hong Chui, PhD, is an associate professor of social work and the associate dean (undergraduate education) of the Faculty of Social Sciences at The University of Hong Kong, SAR (Special Administrative Region). His current research focuses on youth and delinquency, probation studies, prisons, and young people’s views of the lawyer and criminal justice personnel. He is the coeditor of the book titled Understanding Criminal Justice in Hong Kong (2008) that has been used as a key textbook in most universities in Hong Kong.

Heng Choon (Oliver) Chan, PhD, is an assistant professor of criminology at City University of Hong Kong, SAR. He received his PhD in criminology from the University of South Florida, Tampa, and was selected as a 2012 Outstanding Criminology Ambassador Award recipient by his alma mater. His research focuses on sexual homicide, offender profiling, sex offending, homicide, stalking behavior, and criminological issues related to the Asian population, and has published extensively on these topics.

References

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.

Baron

S. W.

(2003). Self-control, social consequences, and criminal behavior: Street youth and the general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 40, 403-425.

Bartusch

D. R. J.

Lynam

D. R.

Moffitt

T. E.

Silva

P. A.

(1997). Is age important? Testing a general versus a developmental theory of antisocial behavior. Criminology, 35, 13-48.

Beaver

K. M.

DeLisi

Mears

D. P.

Stewart

(2009). Low self-control and contact with the criminal justice system in a nationally representative sample of males. Justice Quarterly, 26, 695-715.

Beaver

K. M.

DeLisi

Vaughn

M. G.

Wright

J. P.

(2010). The intersection of genes and neuropsychological deficits in the prediction of adolescent delinquency and low self-control. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 22-42.

Beaver

K. M.

Wright

J. P.

DeLisi

Vaughn

M. G.

(2008). Genetic influences on the stability of low self-control: Results from a longitudinal sample of twins. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 478-485.

Benda

B. B.

(2003). Survival analysis of criminal recidivism of boot camp graduates using elements from general and developmental explanatory models. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47, 89-110.

Benson

Moore

(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 & Delinquency, 29, 251-272.

Blackwell

B. S.

Piquero

A. R.

(2005). On the relationships between gender, power, control, self-control, and crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 1-17.

10.

Brownfield

Sorenson

(1993). Self-control and juvenile delinquency: Theoretical issues and an empirical assessment of selected elements of a general theory of crime. Deviant Behavior, 14, 243-264.

11.

Burton

V. S.

Cullen

F. T.

Evans

D. T.

Alarid

L. F.

Dunaway

G. R.

(1998). Gender, self-control, and crime. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 35, 123-147.

12.

Caspi

Moffitt

T. E.

Silva

P. A.

Stouthamer-Loeber

Krueger

R. F.

Schmutte

P. S.

(1994). Are some people crime-prone? Replications of the personality-crime relationship across countries, genders, races, and methods. Criminology, 32, 163-195.

13.

Cernkovich

S. A.

Giordano

P. C.

Pugh

M. D.

(1985). Chronic offenders: The missing cases in self-report delinquency research. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 76, 705-732.

14.

Chan

H. C.

Heide

K. M.

(2009). Sexual homicide: A synthesis of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10, 31-54.

15.

Chan

H. C.

Heide

K. M.

Beauregard

(2011). What propels sexual murderers: A proposed integrated theory of social learning and routine activities theories. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55, 228-250.

16.

Chapple

C. L.

(2005). Self-control, peer relations, and delinquency. Justice Quarterly, 22, 89-106.

17.

Chapple

C. L.

McQuillan

J. A.

Berdahl

T. A.

(2005). Gender, social bonds, and delinquency: A comparison of boys’ and girls’ models. Social Science Research, 34, 357-383.

18.

Chesney-Lind

(1989). Girls’ crime and woman’s place: Toward a feminist model of female delinquency. Crime & Delinquency, 35, 5-29.

19.

Cheung

N. W. T.

Cheung

Y. W.

(2008). Self-control, social factors, and delinquency: A test of the general theory of crime among adolescents in Hong Kong. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 412-430.

20.

Cheung

N. W. T.

Cheung

Y. W.

(2010). Strain, self-control, and gender differences in delinquency among Chinese adolescents: Extending general strain theory. Sociological Perspectives, 53, 321-345.

21.

Chui

W. H.

(1999). Residential treatment programs for young offenders in Hong Kong: A report. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43, 38-321.

22.

Chui

W. H.

(2005). Detention center in Hong Kong: A young offender’s narrative. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 41, 67-84.

23.

Cochran

J. K.

Wood

P. B.

Sellers

C. S.

Wikerson

Chamlin

M. B.

(1998). Academic dishonesty and low self-control: An empirical test of a general theory of crime. Deviant Behavior, 19, 227-255.

24.

Cohen

L. E.

Felson

(1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activities approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-608.

25.

Cronbach

(1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.

26.

Daly

Chesney-Lind

(1988). Feminism and criminology. Justice Quarterly, 5, 497-538.

27.

DeLisi

(2001). It’s all in the record: Assessing self-control theory with an offender sample. Criminal Justice Review, 26, 1-16.

28.

DeLisi

Hochstetler

Murphy

D. S.

(2003). Self-control behind bars: A validation study of the Grasmick et al. scale. Justice Quarterly, 20, 241-262.

29.

Evans

D. T.

Cullen

F. T.

Burton

V. S.

Dunaway

R. G.

Benson

M. L.

(1997). The social consequences of self-control: Testing the general theory of crime. Criminology, 35, 475-504.

30.

Gibbs

J. J.

Giever

Martin

J. S.

(1998). Parental management and self-control: An empirical test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory. Justice Quarterly, 12, 231-235.

31.

Gibson

C. L.

Ward

J. T.

Wright

J. P.

Beaver

K. M.

DeLisi

(2010). Where does gender fit in the measurement of self-control? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 883-903.

32.

Gibson

C. L.

Wright

J. P.

(2001). Low self-control and coworker delinquency: A research note. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 483-492.

33.

Gibson

C. L.

Wright

J. P.

Tibbetts

S. G.

(2000). An empirical assessment of the generality of the general theory of crime: The effects of low self-control on social development. Journal of Crime and Justice, 23, 109-134.

34.

Gottfredson

M. R.

(2006). The empirical status of control theory in criminology. In Cullen

F. T.

Wright

J. P.

Blevins

K. R.

(Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory (pp. 77-100). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.

35.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Hirschi

(1989). A propensity-event theory of crime. In Laufer

W. S.

Adler

(Eds.), Advances in criminological theory (Vol. 1, pp. 57-67). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

36.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Hirschi

(1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

37.

Grasmick

H. G.

Tittle

C. R.

Bursik

R. J.

Arneklev

B. J.

(1993). Testing the core implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 30, 5-29.

38.

Hagan

(1989). Structural criminology. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

39.

Hay

(2001). Parenting, self-control, and delinquency: A test of self-control theory. Criminology, 39, 707-736.

40.

Hechter

Kanazawa

(1997). Sociological rational choice theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 191-214.

41.

Heimer

DeCoster

(1999). The gendering of violent delinquency. Criminology, 37, 277-317.

42.

Higgins

(2007). Examining the original Grasmick scale: A Rasch model approach. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 157-178.

43.

Hindelang

M. J.

Hirschi

Weis

(1981). Measuring delinquency. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

44.

Hirschi

(2004). Self-control and crime. In Baumeister

R. F.

Vohs

K. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 537-552). New York, NY: Guilford.

45.

Hirschi

Gottfredson

M. R.

(1993). Commentary: Testing the general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 30, 47-54.

46.

Hirschi

Gottfredson

M. R.

(1994). The generality of deviance. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

47.

Hirschi

Gottfredson

M. R.

(2001). Self-control theory. In Paternoster

Bachman

(Eds.), Explaining criminals and crime: Essays in contemporary criminological theory (pp. 81-96). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.

48.

Huebner

A. J.

Betts

S. C.

(2002). Exploring the utility of social control theory for youth development. Youth & Society, 34, 123-145.

49.

Hwang

Akers

R. L.

(2003). Substance use and Korean adolescents: A cross-cultural test of social learning, social bonding, and self-control theories. In Akers

R. L.

Jensen

G. F.

(Eds.), Social learning theory and the explanation of crime (pp. 39-63). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

50.

Keane

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 & Delinquency, 30, 30-46.

51.

Kerley

K. R.

Sirisunyaluck

(2008). Self-control, intimate partner abuse, and intimate partner victimization: Testing the general theory of crime in Thailand. Deviant Behavior, 29, 503-532.

52.

LaGrange

T. C.

Silverman

R. A.

(1999). Low self-control and opportunity: Testing the general theory of crime as an explanation of gender differences in delinquency. Criminology, 37, 41-72.

53.

Langton

(2006). Low self-control and parole failure: An assessment of risk from a theoretical perspective. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 469-478.

54.

Longshore

Turner

(1998). Self-control and criminal opportunity: Cross-sectional test of the general theory of crime. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25, 81-98.

55.

Longshore

Turner

Stein

J. A.

(1996). Self-control in a criminal sample: An examination of construct validity. Criminology, 34, 209-228.

56.

Marcus

(2004). An empirical examination of the construct validity of two alternative self-control measures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 674-706.

57.

Mason

W. A.

Windle

(2002). Gender, self-control, and informal social control in adolescence: A test of three models of the continuity of delinquent behavior. Youth & Society, 33, 479-514.

58.

McGloin

J. M.

Shermer

L. O.

(2009). Self-control and deviant peer network structure. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 46, 35-72.

59.

Meldrum

R. C.

Young

J. T. N.

Weerman

F. M.

(2009). Reconsidering the effect of self-control and delinquent peers: Implications of measurement for theoretical significance. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 46, 353-376.

60.

Miller

S. L.

Burack

(1993). A critique of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: Selective (in)attention to gender and power positions. Women & Criminal Justice, 4, 115-134.

61.

Muraven

Pogarsky

Shmueli

(2006). Self-control depletion and the general theory of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22, 263-277.

62.

Nagin

D. S.

Paternoster

(1993). Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law & Society Review, 27, 467-496.

63.

Nakhaie

M. R.

Silverman

R. A.

LaGrange

T. C.

(2000). Self-control and social control? An examination of gender, ethnicity, class, and delinquency. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 25, 35-39.

64.

Nofziger

(2008). The “cause” of low self-control: The influence of maternal self-control. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 45, 191-224.

65.

Nofziger

(2010). A gendered perspective on the relationship between self-control and deviance. Feminist Criminology, 5 29-50.

66.

Özbay

Koksoy

(2009). Is low self-control associated with violence among youths in Turkey? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53, 145-167.

67.

Paternoster

Brame

(1997). Multiple routes to delinquency? A test of developmental and general theories of crime. Criminology, 35, 49-84.

68.

Piquero

A. R.

MacDonald

Dobrin

Daigle

L. E.

Cullen

F. T.

(2005). Self-control, violent offending, and homicide victimization: Assessing the general theory of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21, 55-71.

69.

Piquero

A. R.

MacIntosh

Hickman

(2000). Does self-control affect survey response? Applying exploratory, confirmatory, and item response theory analysis to Grasmick et al.’s self-control scale. Criminology, 38, 897-929.

70.

Piquero

A. R.

Rosay

A. B.

(1998). The reliability and validity of Grasmick et al.’s self-control scale: A comment on Longshore et al. Criminology, 36, 157-173.

71.

Piquero

A. R.

Tibbetts

(1996). Specifying the direct and indirect effects of low self-control and situational factors in offender’s decision making. Justice Quarterly, 13, 481-510.

72.

Polakowski

(1994). Linking self- and social control with deviance: Illuminating the structure underlying a general theory of crime and its relation to deviant activity. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10, 41-78.

73.

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.

74.

Pratt

T. C.

Turner

M. G.

Piquero

A. R.

(2004). Parental socialization and community context: A longitudinal analysis of the structural sources of low self-control. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 41, 219.243.

75.

Rankin

Kern

(1994). Parental attachments and delinquency. Criminology, 32, 495-516.

76.

Rebellon

C. J.

Straus

M. A.

Medeiros

(2008). Self-control in global perspective: An empirical assessment of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory within and across 32 national settings. European Journal of Criminology, 5, 331-362.

77.

Romero

Gomez-Fraguela

A. J.

Luengo

A. M.

Sobral

(2003). The self-control construct in the General Theory of Crime: An investigation in terms of personality psychology. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9, 61-86.

78.

Schreck

C. J.

Stewart

E. A.

Fisher

B. S.

(2006). Self-control, victimization, and their influence on risky lifestyles: A longitudinal analysis using panel data. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22, 319-340.

79.

Steffensmeier

(1983). Organization properties and sex-segregation in the underworld: Building a sociological theory of sex differences in crime. Social Forces, 61, 1010-1032.

80.

Steffensmeier

Allan

E. A.

(2000). Looking for patterns: Gender, age, and crime. In Sheley

J. F.

(Ed.), Criminology (pp. 83-113). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

81.

Stewart

E. A.

Elifson

K. W.

Sterk

C. E.

(2004). Integrating the general theory of crime into an explanation of violent victimization among female offenders. Justice Quarterly, 21, 159-181.

82.

Tittle

C. R.

Grasmick

H. G.

(1997). Criminal behavior and age: A test of three provocative hypotheses. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, 309-342.

83.

Tittle

C. R.

Paternoster

(2000). Social deviance and crime: An organizational and theoretical approach. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.

84.

Tittle

C. R.

Ward

D. A.

(1993). The interaction of age with the correlates and causes of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 9, 3-53.

85.

Tittle

C. R.

Ward

D. A.

Grasmick

H. G.

(2003a). Gender, age, and crime/deviance: A challenge to self-control theory. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 40, 426-453.

86.

Tittle

C. R.

Ward

D. A.

Grasmick

H. G.

(2003b). Self-control and crime/deviance: Cognitive vs. behavioral measures. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19, 333-365.

87.

Turner

M. G.

Piquero

A. R.

(2002). The stability of self-control. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 457-471.

88.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

(2003). Cross-national comparative research in criminology: Content or simply methodology? In Britt

C. L.

Gottfredson

M. R.

(Eds.), Control theories of crime and delinquency (pp. 179-211). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

89.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

Klanjsek

(2008). A test of self-control theory across different socioeconomic strata. Justice Quarterly, 25, 101-131.

90.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

Pickering

L. E.

Junger

Hessing

(2001). An empirical test of a general theory of crime: A four-nation comparative study of self-control and the prediction of deviance. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 38, 91-131.

91.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

Wittekind

J. E.

Belliston

L. M.

Van Loh

T. D.

(2004). Extending the general theory of crime to “The East”: Low self-control in Japanese late adolescents. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 20, 189-216.

92.

Wang

G. T.

Qiao

Hong

Zhang

(2002). Adolescent social bond, self-control, and deviant behavior in China. International Journal of Contemporary Sociology, 39, 52-68.

93.

Wood

Pfefferbaum

Arneklev

(1993). Risk-taking and self-control: Social psychological correlates of delinquency. Journal of Crime and Justice, 16, 111-130.

94.

Yun

Walsh

(2011, May). The stability of self-control among South Korean adolescents. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative, 55, 445-459.