Abstract
Research finds low self-control is associated with a myriad of delinquent, criminal, and antisocial behaviors. Less attention, however, has been directed at investigating whether low self-control is related to environmental harm. The current study contributes to this area of research in two ways. First, we explicate why low self-control would relate to environmental harms committed by individuals. Second, using data collected on a sample of approximately 500 adults from southeastern Florida, we test whether low self-control is associated with the specific environmental harm of littering. Results indicate low self-control increases the likelihood of both past littering behavior as well as projected littering behavior. Supplementary analyses demonstrate low self-control is associated with higher frequency littering but not lower frequency littering. Discussion centers on the implications of the findings, study limitations, and a call for additional research to investigate the association between low self-control and a broader array of environmental harms.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We recognize that while all environmental crimes would be categorized as environmental harms, not all environmental harms are necessarily criminal (i.e., some are subject to a non-criminal civil proceeding, citation, or fine). Regardless, the presumption is that Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) theory should be able to explain both criminal and non-criminal environmental harms. Given this, we use the phrase environmental harm throughout the paper with the exception of instances in which direct quotes refer to environmental crime.
Some environmental harms committed by businesses in the pursuit of financial gain (e.g., allowing run-off of toxic chemicals into waterways to avoid more costly disposal methods) are consistent with white-collar offending. Yet, other environmental harms would not be considered white-collar crimes because they are committed outside of the workplace context. Situ and Emmons (2000) offer a number of examples, including dumping paint and chemicals down drains, improper disposal of items (e.g., tires), and failure to remove waste while camping.
Stretesky, Long, & Lynch (2013) directly contend that self-control theory is ill-suited for studying environmental harms committed by organizations and businesses. Our focus, however, is on environmental harms committed at the individual-level. As will be made clear in the following section, we believe self-control theory can be used to understand such behaviors.
A burl is a tree growth where the grain has formed in an abnormal shape. Burls are important for the ecology of forests because they can promote the growth of new trees. At the same time, burls have a high monetary value, and they are often sliced into veneers to make furniture, picture frames, and musical instruments because of the uniqueness of the wood grain.
In a traditional perspective, the self-centeredness dimension of low self-control pertains to the lack of concern for how one’s actions affect other people, but in the context of the current example, ‘lack of concern’ would apply to flora and fauna and not just people.
The study was a master’s thesis that, to our knowledge, was never published in an academic journal.
The measure consisted of items relating to unemployment, divorce, number of sexual partners, motor vehicle violations, auto accidents, and drinking habits.
This is also true of the study by Ray and Jones (2011) that focused on psychopathic traits as a predictor of intentions to engage in toxic dumping.
It can also be noted that low self-control was not the primary focus of the study by Reisig et al. (2014). Low self-control was merely included as a control variable in models that focused on the effect of procedural justice and police legitimacy on littering and other antisocial behaviors.
According to the census.gov website, approximately two-thirds of residents in Miami-Dade County (i.e., southeastern Florida) identify as Hispanic.
The 10% includes those who said “Three to Five Times,” “Six to Ten Times,” and “More than 10 Times.”
Supplementary analyses using a three-category measure of past littering behavior, with a value of two representing the 10% of participants who reported littering more than “once or twice,” are discussed following the presentation of the main results.
Some readers may question the use of single item measures of self-reported littering behavior. Yet, they commonly appear in the research literature (e.g., de Puiseau et al., 2019; Reisig et al., 2014), and the results will demonstrate that several variables are associated with variation in the singe-item measures of past and projected littering in ways that would be expected of valid indicators of the behavior.
To encourage participation in the study by keeping the in-person survey interviews brief, not all 24 items developed by Grasmick et al. (1993) were included. Impulsivity, risk-seeking, and self-centeredness items were chosen given that past research indicates these dimensions are more strongly associated with antisocial behavior than other dimensions (e.g., Piquero & Rosay, 1998).
The construct validity of this 8-item measure is demonstrated by the fact that it is positively correlated with being male (r = 0.15), peer littering (r = 0.22), and both past littering (r = 0.19) and projected littering (r = 0.18). Thus, even though the full 24-item Grasmick et al. (1993) scale was not used in this study, the 8-item measure operates in a manner that would be expected of a valid measure of low self-control.
This percentage can be compared to the most recent estimates available from the 2017 National Survey of Drug Use and Health, which reported that 22.3% of 18–25 year olds have used cigarettes in the past 30 days, while 18.9% of individuals 26 or older have used cigarettes in the past 30 days (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2018).
Illegal disposal in excess of 15 pounds but less than 500 pounds (“dumping”) is punishable as a first degree misdemeanor; a weight exceeding 500 pounds is punishable as a third degree felony. As a point of reference, a typical car tire weighs around 20 pounds.
A brant test for Model 2 in Appendix B indicated the parallel regression assumption was not being violated for the model as a whole (p = 0.06).
The full results for each of the supplementary models described in the preceding two paragraphs are available on request.
References
Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30, 47–88.
Agnew, R. (2012). Dire forecast: A theoretical model of the impact of climate change on crime. Theoretical Criminology, 16, 21–42.
Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Armitage, N. (2007). The reduction of urban litter in the stormwater drains of South Africa. Urban Water Journal, 4, 151–172.
Bator, R. J., Bryan, A. D., & Wesley Schultz, P. (2011). Who gives a hoot? Intercept surveys of litterers and disposers. Environment and Behavior, 43, 295–315.
Benson, M. L., & Moore, E. (1992). Are white-collar and common offenders the same? An empirical and theoretical critique of a recently proposed general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29, 251–272.
Brisman, A. (2014). Of theory and meaning in green criminology. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 3, 21–34.
Burt, C. H., Simons, R. L., & Simons, L. G. (2006). A longitudinal test of the effects of parenting and the stability of self-control: Negative evidence for the general theory of crime. Criminology, 44, 353–396.
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015–1026.
Craig, J. M., & Piquero, N. L. (2016). The effects of low self-control and desire-for-control on white-collar offending: A replication. Deviant Behavior, 37, 1308–1324.
de Puiseau, B. W., Glöckner, A., & Towfigh, E. V. (2019). Integrating theories of law obedience: How utility-theoretic factors, legitimacy, and lack of self-control influence decisions to commit low-level crimes. Judgment and Decision making, 14, 318–334.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Grasmick, H. G., Bursik, R. J., Jr., & Kinsey, K. A. (1991). Shame and embarrassment as deterrents to noncompliance with the law: The case of an antilittering campaign. Environment and Behavior, 23, 233–251.
Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursik, R. J., Jr., & Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 5–29.
Green, D. S., Boots, B., Carvalho, J. D. S., & Starkey, T. (2019). Cigarette butts have adverse effects on initial growth of perennial ryegrass (gramineae: Lolium perenne L.) and white clover (leguminosae: Trifolium repens L.). Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 182, 109418.
Hay, C., & Meldrum, R. (2015). Self-control and crime over the life course. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. (1993). Commentary: Testing the general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 47–54.
Hoeben, E. M., Meldrum, R. C., Walker, D., & Young, J. T. (2016). The role of peer delinquency and unstructured socializing in explaining delinquency and substance use: A state-of-the-art review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 47, 108–122.
Keep America Beautiful. (2010). Litter in America: Key findings. Keep America Beautiful, Inc.
Langton, L., Piquero, N. L., & Hollinger, R. C. (2006). An empirical test of the relationship between employee theft and low self-control. Deviant Behavior, 27, 537–565.
Lugo, M. A. (2013). Self-control, attitudinal beliefs, and white-collar crime intentions. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of South Florida, Tampa.
Lynch, M. J., & Pires, S. F. (Eds.). (2019a). Quantitative studies in green and conservation criminology: The measurement of environmental harm and crime. New York: Routledge.
Lynch, M. J., & Pires, S. F. (2019b). Introduction to quantitative and empirical studies in green and conservation criminology. In M. Lynch & S. Pires (Eds.), Quantitative studies in green and conservation criminology (pp. 1–19). New York: Routledge.
Lynch, M. J., & Stretesky, P. B. (2003). The meaning of green: Contrasting criminological perspectives. Theoretical Criminology, 7, 271–238.
Lynch, M. J., Barrett, K. L., Stretesky, P. B., & Long, M. A. (2017). The neglect of quantitative research in green criminology and its consequences. Critical Criminology, 25, 183–198.
Marteache, N., & Pires, S. F. (2019). Choice structuring properties of natural resource theft: An examination of redwood burl poaching. Deviant Behavior, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2019.1565518
McNeeley, S., & Warner, J. J. (2015). Replication in criminology: A necessary practice. European Journal of Criminology, 12, 581–597.
Medway, D., Parker, C., & Roper, S. (2016). Litter, gender and brand: The anticipation of incivilities and perceptions of crime prevalence. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 135–144.
Meldrum, R. C., Young, J. T., & Weerman, F. M. (2012). Changes in self-control during adolescence: Investigating the influence of the adolescent peer network. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 452–462.
Nagin, D. S., & Paternoster, R. (1991). On the relationship of past to future participation in delinquency. Criminology, 29, 163–189.
Nobles, M. R. (2019). Environmental crime and contemporary criminology: Making a difference. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 44, 656–669.
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, 157–174.
Pires, S., & Clarke, R. V. (2012). Are parrots CRAVED? An analysis of parrot poaching in Mexico. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49, 122–146.
Pratt, T. C. (2016). A self-control/life-course theory of criminal behavior. European Journal of Criminology, 13, 129–146.
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.
Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Sellers, C. S., Thomas Winfree, L., Jr., Madensen, T. D., Daigle, L. E., & Gau, J. M. (2010). The empirical status of social learning theory: A meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 27, 765–802.
Ray, J. V., & Jones, S. (2011). Self-reported psychopathic traits and their relation to intentions to engage in environmental offending. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55, 370–391.
Reisig, M. D., Tankebe, J., & Mesko, G. (2014). Compliance with the law in Slovenia: The role of procedural justice and police legitimacy. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 20, 259–276.
Shover, N., & Routhe, A. S. (2005). Environmental crime. Crime and Justice, 32, 321–371.
Simpson, S. S., & Piquero, N. L. (2002). Low self-control, organizational theory, and corporate crime. Law and Society Review, 509–548.
Situ, Y., & Emmons, D. (2000). Environmental crime. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Sollund, R., & Brisman, A. (2017). Editors’ Introduction to the Special Issue, “Researching Environmental Harm, Doing Green Criminology.” Critical Criminology, 25(2), 159–163.
Stretesky, P. B., Long, M. A., & Lynch, M. J. (2013). The treadmill of crime: Political economy and green criminology. Abingdon: Routledge.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2018). Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: Results from the 2017 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (HHS Publication No. SMA 18-5068, NSDUH Series H-53). Rockville: Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Retrieved from https://www.samhsa.gov/data/
Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of criminology (4th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271–324.
Teasdale, B., & Silver, E. (2009). Neighborhoods and self-control: Toward an expanded view of socialization. Social Problems, 56, 205–222.
Vazsonyi, A. T., Mikuška, J., & Kelley, E. L. (2017). It’s time: A meta-analysis on the self-control-deviance link. Journal of Criminal Justice, 48, 48–63.
Wagner, T. P., & Broaddus, N. (2016). The generation and cost of litter resulting from the curbside collection of recycling. Waste Management, 50, 3–9.
White, R. (2008). Crimes against nature: Environmental criminology and ecological justice. New York: Routledge.
Wyles, K. J., Pahl, S., Thomas, K., & Thompson, R. C. (2016). Factors that can undermine the psychological benefits of coastal environments: Exploring the effect of tidal state, presence, and type of litter. Environment and Behavior, 48, 1095–1126.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Partin, R.D., Stojakovic, N., Alqahtani, M. et al. Low Self-Control and Environmental Harm: A Theoretical Perspective and Empirical Test. Am J Crim Just 45, 933–954 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-019-09514-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-019-09514-3