Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Self-control Depletion and the General Theory of Crime

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Quantitative Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Criminological research on self-control focuses mainly on self-control failure. Such research has not, however, investigated the consequences of exercising self-control for the individual doing so. The present study investigates this issue within the framework of both criminological self-control theory and research on self-control depletion from social psychology, which depicts self-control as akin to a “muscle” that is “depletable” by prior use [Muraven and Baumeister (2000) Psycholog Bull 126:247–259]. Results are presented from a laboratory experiment in which students have the opportunity to cheat. Both “trait self-control,” as measured by the Grasmick et al. [(1993) J Res Crime Delinq 30:5–29] self-control inventory, and “self-control depletion” independently predicted cheating. The implications of these findings are explored for criminological perspectives on self-control and offender decision-making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Or, at the very least, the theory appears to consider any motivational differences incidental to understanding criminal behavior.

  2. Manipulation checks established that suppressing the thought of a white bear required far more self-control than adding numbers together, but otherwise the tasks did not differ in how long they took, how unpleasant they were, how motivated participants felt afterwards, or how arousing they were.

  3. E appears in 11.2% of words in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 9th edition. The second and third most frequent letters are A (8.5%) and R (7.6%). See www.askoxford.com.

  4. Aside from satisfying their course requirement, students were not compensated for participating in the experiment. In debriefing, participants consistently indicated that they were motivated to solve the puzzles, which would be consistent with prior research on the experimental setting (e.g., Milgram 1974; Orne 1970). There also were no apparent differences in motivational strength by experimental condition. We were less concerned with why each respondent wished to solve the puzzles. According to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990, p. 88), the broad range of transgressions covered by their theory “require no special capabilities, needs, or motivation” (emphasis supplied). Their theory implies either that individuals are equally motivated to violate rules or, at the very least, any differences in motivation are incidental for understanding behavior. Thus, our experiment appears sufficient for present purposes: Participants were motivated to complete the task and, in so doing, had the opportunity to cheat.

  5. Following the experiment, no participant indicated he or she was aware of the true nature of the experiment, the self-control strength model, or A General Theory of Crime.

  6. See Paternoster et al. (1998).

  7. Although it was beyond the scope of this study, we address the potential interaction between trait self-control and self-control depletion in the conclusion.

  8. As reported earlier, the inclusion of an interaction variable did not significantly improve the model fit and interaction coefficients were not statistically distinguishable from zero for either outcome.

  9. This was not done for Model (3) because, for this outcome, only 44 participants had the opportunity to cheat (recall there was a second experimental condition), thus leaving at most 9 participants in each quintile of the distribution of trait self-control.

  10. These analyses used the test statistic in Paternoster et al. (1998), \(z=\frac{\mathop b\nolimits_1-\mathop b\nolimits_2} {\sqrt {\mathop {SE}\nolimits_{b1} ^2+\mathop{SE}\nolimits_{b2} ^2}}\). For a one-tailed test, the null hypothesis is rejected (P<0.032); for a two-tailed test, the difference is marginally significant (P<0.064).

References

  • Bargh JA (1994) The four horsemen of automaticity: awareness, intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition. In: Wyer RS, Srull TS (eds) Handbook of social cognition, vol 1. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 1–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Barkley RA (1997) Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions: constructing a unifying theory of ADHD. Psycholog Bull 121:65–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron SW (2003) Self-control, social consequences and criminal behavior: street youth and the general theory of crime. J Res Crime Delinq 40:403–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister RF (2002) Ego depletion and self-control failure: an energy model of the self’s regulatory function. Self Identity 1:129–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bursik RJ Jr, Grasmick HG (1993) Neighborhoods and crime: the dimensions of effective community control. New York, Macmillan

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter BL, Tiffany ST (1999) Meta-analysis of cue-reactivity in addiction research. Addiction 94:327–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans DT, Cullen FT, Burton VS, Dunaway G, Bensonc ML (1997) The social consequences of self-control: testing the general theory of crime. Criminology 35:475–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson MR, Hirschi T (1990) A general theory of crime. New York, NY, Macmillan Publishing Co

    Google Scholar 

  • Grasmick HG, Tittle CR, Bursik RJ Jr, Arneklev BJ (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. J Res Crime Delinq 30:5–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschi TH, Gottfredson M (2001) Self-control theory. In: Raymond P, Ronet B (eds) Explaining criminals and crime: Essays in contemporary criminological theory. Roxbury, Los Angeles, pp 81–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschi TH, Gottfredson M (2000) In defense of self-control. Theor Criminol 4:55–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschi TH, Gottfredson M (1993) Commentary: testing the general theory of crime. J Res Crime Delinq 30:47–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horney J (2005) Presidential Address to American Society of Criminology

  • Kanfer FH, Karoly P (1972) Self-control: a behavioristic excursion into the lion’s den. Behav Ther 3:398–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaGrange TC, Silverman RA (1999) Low self-control and opportunity: testing the General Theory of Crime as an explanation for gender differences in delinquency. Criminology 37:41–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longshore D, Chang E, Hsieh SC, Messina N (2004) Self-control and social bonds: a combined control perspective on deviance. Crime Delinq 50:542–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynam DR, Caspi A, Moffitt TE, Wikstrom PH, Loeber R, Novak S (2000) The interaction between impulsivity and neighborhood context on offending: the effects of impulsivity are stronger in poorer neighborhoods. J Abnorm Psychol 109:563–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marlatt GA, Parks GA (1982) Self-management of addictive behaviors. In: Karoly P, Kanfer F (eds) Self-management and behavior change: from theory to practice. Pergamon Press, New York, pp 443–488

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgram S (1974) Obedience to authority; an experimental view. New York, Harper & Row

    Google Scholar 

  • Mischel W (1996) From good intentions to willpower. In: Gollwitzer PM, Bargh JA (eds) The psychology of action: linking cognition and motivation to behavior. Guilford Press, New York, pp 197–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer JD, Gaschke YN (1988) The experience and meta-experience of mood. J Pers Soc Psychol 55:102–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muraven M, Baumeister RF (2000) Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: does self-control resemble a muscle? Psycholog Bull 126:247–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muraven M, Collins LR, Nienhaus K (2002). Self-control and alcohol restraint: an initial application of the self-control strength model. Psychol Addict Behav 16:113–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muraven M, Collins RL, Shiffman S, Paty JA (2005) Daily fluctuations in self-control demands and alcohol intake. Psychol Addict Behav 19:140–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muraven M, Shmueli D (in press) The Self-Control Costs of Fighting the Temptation to Drink. Psychol Addict Behav

  • Muraven M, Slessareva E (2003) Mechanisms of self-control failure: motivation and limited resources. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 29:894–906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muraven M, Tice DM, Baumeister RF (1998) Self-control as a limited resource: regulatory depletion patterns. J Pers Soc Psychol 74:774–789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagin DS, Pogarsky G (2003) An experimental investigation of deterrence: cheating, self-serving bias, and impulsivity. Criminology 41:167–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orne MT (1970) Hypnosis, motivation, and the ecological validity of the psychological experiment. In: Arnold WJ, Page MM (eds) Nebraska symposium on motivation. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE, pp 187–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster R, Brame R (1998). Structural similarity of processes generating criminal and analogous behaviors. Criminology 36:633–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster R, Brame R, Mazerolle P, Piquero AR (1998) Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology 36:859–866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peter T, LaGrange TC, Silverman RA (2003) Investigating the interdependence of strain and self-control. Can J Criminol Crim Just 45:431–465

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt TC, Turner MG, Piquero AR (2004) Parental socialization and community context: a longitudinal analysis of the structural sources of low self-control. J Res Crime Delinq 41:219–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rieger M (2004) Automatic keypress activation in skilled typing. J Exp Psychol: Hum Perc Perform 30:555–565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson RJ, Raudenbush S, Earls F (1997) Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 277:918–924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiffany ST (1990) A cognitive model of drug urges and drug-use behavior: role of automatic and nonautomatic processes. Psycholog Rev 97:147–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tittle CR, Botchkovar EV (2005) Self-control, criminal motivation and deterrence: an investigation using Russian respondents. Criminology 43:307–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tittle CR, Ward DA, Grasmick HG (2004) Capacity for self-control and individuals’ interest in exercising it. J Quant Criminol 20:143–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tittle CR, Ward DA, Grasmick HG (2003) Gender, age, and crime/deviance: a challenge to self-control theory. J Res Crime Delinq 40:426–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vohs KD, Heatherton TF (2000) Self-regulatory failure: a resource-depletion approach. Psycholog Sci 11:243–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace HW, Baumeister RF (2002) The effects of success versus failure feedback on further self-control. Self Identity 1:35–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Research support is acknowledged from the National Institute of Drug Abuse (grant# R01 DA 016131). The authors also wish to thank Joseph Mauro and Jessica Lopez for invaluable research assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University at Albany, Social Sciences 356, Albany, NY, 12222, USA

    Mark Muraven & Dikla Shmueli

  2. School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, 135 Western Avenue, Albany, NY, 12222, USA

    Greg Pogarsky

Authors
  1. Mark Muraven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Greg Pogarsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dikla Shmueli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Muraven.

Appendix

Appendix

The starting line-up for the Olympic basketball "Dream Team" is chosen from the following two groups:

  • Group A: Johnson, Drexler, Bird, Ewing

  • Group B: Laettner, Robinson, Jordan, Malone, Pippen

The following requirements must be met:

    • Two players are chosen from Group A, and three from Group B.

    • Jordan starts only if Bird starts.

    • Drexler and Bird do not both start.

    • If Jordan starts, then Malone does not.

    • Exactly 3 of the four fast-break specialists–Johnson, Bird, Jordan, Pippen–must be chosen.

    1. 1.

      If Jordan starts, which of the following must also start?

      1. (A)

        Malone or Johnson

      2. (B)

        Drexler or Laettner

      3. (C)

        Drexler or Johnson

      4. (D)

        Laettner or Robinson

      5. (E)

        Malone or Robinson

    2. 2.

      All of the following pairs of players can start together EXCEPT:

      1. (A)

        Pippen and Drexler

      2. (B)

        Jordan and Johnson

      3. (C)

        Robinson and Johnson

      4. (D)

        Johnson and Bird

      5. (E)

        Pippen and Malone

    3. 3.

      If Malone starts, which one of the following is a complete and accurate list of the players from Group A any one of whom could also start?

      1. (A)

        J

      2. (B)

        J, D

      3. (C)

        J, E, B

      4. (D)

        J, D, B

      5. (E)

        all of these

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Muraven, M., Pogarsky, G. & Shmueli, D. Self-control Depletion and the General Theory of Crime. J Quant Criminol 22, 263–277 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-006-9011-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-006-9011-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation