American Journal of Criminal Justice

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 378–395 | Cite as

Low Self-Control, Deviant Peer Associations, and Juvenile Cyberdeviance

  • Thomas J. Holt
  • Adam M. Bossler
  • David C. May


Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) general theory of crime and Akers’ (1998) social learning theory have received strong empirical support for explaining crime in both the physical and cyberworlds. Most of the studies examining cybercrime, however, have only used college samples. In addition, the evidence on the interaction between low self-control and deviant peer associations is mixed. Therefore, this study examined whether low self-control and deviant peer associations explained various forms of cyberdeviance in a youth sample. We also tested whether associating with deviant peers mediated the effect of low self-control on cyberdeviance as well as whether it conditioned the effect. Low self-control and deviant peer associations were found to be related to cyberdeviance in general, as well as piracy, harassment, online pornography, and hacking specifically. Deviant peer associations both mediated and exacerbated the effect of low self-control on general cyberdeviance, though these interactions were not found for the five cyberdeviant types examined.


Cybercrime Low self-control Social learning Peer offending Juvenile delinquency 


  1. Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Akers, R. L., & Jensen, G. F. (2006). The empirical status of social learning theory of crime and deviance: The past, present, and future. In F. T. Cullen, J. P. Wright, & K. R. Blevins (Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory (pp. 37–76). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Akers, R. L., & Lee, G. (1996). A longitudinal test of social learning theory: Adolescent smoking. Journal of Drug Issues, 26, 317–343.Google Scholar
  4. Bocij, P. (2004). Cyberstalking: Harassment in the internet age and how to protect your family. Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  5. Boeringer, S., Shehan, C. L., & Akers, R. L. (1991). Social contexts and sexual learning in sexual coercion and aggression: Assessing the contribution of fraternity membership. Family Relations, 40, 558–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bossler, A. M., & Burruss, G. W. (2010). The general theory of crime and computer hacking: Low self-control hackers? In T. J. Holt & B. Schell (Eds.), Corporate hacking and technology-driven crime: Social dynamics and implications (pp. 57–81). Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  7. Bossler, A. M., & Holt, T. J. (2010). The effect of self-control on victimization in the cyberworld. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brownfield, D., & Sorenson, A. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buzzell, B., Foss, D., & Middleton, Z. (2006). Explaining use of online pornography: A test of self-control theory and opportunities for deviance. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 13, 96–116.Google Scholar
  10. Chapple, C. L. (2005). Self-control, peer relations, and delinquency. Justice Quarterly, 22, 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeLisi, M., & Vaughn, M. (2008). The Gottfredson-Hirschi critiques revisited: Reconciling self-control theory, criminal careers, and career criminals. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52, 520–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DiMarco, H. (2003). The electronic cloak: Secret sexual deviance in cybersociety. In Y. Jewkes (Ed.), Dot.cons: Crime, deviance, and identity on the internet (pp. 53–67). Portland: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Edleman, B. (2009). Red light states: Who buys online adult entertainment? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23, 209–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Evans, T. D., Cullen, F. T., Burton, V. S., Jr., Dunaway, R. G., & Benson, M. L. (1997). The social consequences of self-control: Testing the general theory of crime. Criminology, 35, 475–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Finn, J. (2004). A survey of online harassment at a university campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 468–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Furnell, S. (2002). Cybercrime: Vandalizing the information society. Boston: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  17. Gibson, C. L., Ward, J. T., Wright, J. P., Beaver, K. M., & Delisi, M. (2010). Where does gender fit in the measurement of self-control? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 883–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibson, C., & Wright, J. (2001). Low self-control and coworker delinquency: A research note. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 483–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gopal, R., Sanders, G. L., Bhattacharjee, S., Agrawal, M., & Wagner, S. (2004). A behavioral model of digital music piracy. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 14, 89–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gottfredson, M. R. (2006). The empirical status of control theory in criminology. In F. Cullen, J. P. Wright, & K. R. Blevins (Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory (pp. 77–100). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1987). The methodological adequacy of longitudinal research on crime. Criminology, 25, 581–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Higgins, G. E. (2005). Can low self-control help with the understanding of the software piracy problem? Deviant Behavior, 26, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Higgins, G. E. (2006). Gender differences in software piracy: The mediating roles of self-control theory and social learning theory. Journal of Economic Crime Management, 4, 1–30.Google Scholar
  26. Higgins, G. E. (2007). Examining the original Grasmick scale: A Rasch model approach. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 157–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Higgins, G. E., Fell, B. D., & Wilson, A. L. (2006). Digital piracy: Assessing the contributions of an integrated self-control theory and social learning theory using structural equation modeling. Criminal Justice Studies, 19, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Higgins, G. E., Fell, B. D., & Wilson, A. L. (2007). Low self-control and social learning in understanding students’ intentions to pirate movies in the United States. Social Science Computer Review, 25, 339–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Higgins, G. E., & Makin, D. A. (2004a). Does social learning theory condition the effects of low self-control on college students’ software piracy. Journal of Economic Crime Management, 2, 1–21.Google Scholar
  30. Higgins, G. E., & Makin, D. A. (2004b). Self-control, deviant peers, and software piracy. Psychological Reports, 95, 921–931.Google Scholar
  31. Higgins, G. E., & Wilson, A. L. (2006). Low self-control, moral beliefs, and social learning theory in university students’ intentions to pirate software. Security Journal, 19, 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Higgins, G. E., Wolfe, S. E., & Marcum, C. D. (2008). Digital piracy: An examination of three measurements of self-control. Deviant Behavior, 29, 440–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hinduja, S. (2001). Correlates of internet software piracy. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 17, 369–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hinduja, S., & Ingram, J. R. (2008). Self-control and ethical beliefs on the social learning of intellectual property theft. Western Criminology Review, 9, 52–72.Google Scholar
  35. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29, 129–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2009). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  37. Holt, T. J. (2007). Subcultural evolution? Examining the influence of on- and off-line experiences on deviant subcultures. Deviant Behavior, 28, 171–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Holt, T. J., & Bossler, A. M. (2009). Examining the applicability of lifestyle-routine activities theory for cybercrime victimization. Deviant Behavior, 30, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Holt, T. J., Burruss, G. W., Bossler, A. M. (2010). Social learning and cyber deviance: Examining the importance of a full social learning model in the virtual world. Journal of Crime and Justice 33, page numbers not assigned yetGoogle Scholar
  40. Ingram, J. R., & Hinduja, S. (2008). Neutralizing music piracy: An empirical examination. Deviant Behavior, 29, 334–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jordan, T., & Taylor, P. (1998). A sociology of hackers. The Sociological Review, 46, 757–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Krohn, M. D. (1999). Social learning theory: The continuing development of a perspective. Theoretical Criminology, 3, 462–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lane, F. S. (2000). Obscene profits: The entrepreneurs of pornography in the cyber age. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Lee, G., Akers, R. L., & Borg, M. J. (2004). Social learning and structural factors in adolescent substance use. Western Criminology Review, 5, 17–34.Google Scholar
  45. Longshore, D., Chang, E., Hsieh, S., & Messina, N. (2004). Self-control and social bonds: A combined control perspective on deviance. Crime & Delinquency, 50, 542–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mason, W. A., & Windle, M. (2002). Gender, self-control, and informal control in adolescence: A test of three models of the continuity of delinquent behavior. Youth and Society, 33, 479–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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 and Delinquency, 46, 353–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Moon, B., McCluskey, J. D., & McCluskey, C. P. (2010). A general theory of crime and computer crime: An empirical test. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 767–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Morris, R. G., & Higgins, G. E. (2010). Criminological theory in the digital age: The case of social learning theory and digital piracy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 470–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Piquero, A. R., MacIntosh, R., & Hickman, M. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Sellers, C. S., Winfree, L. T., Madensen, T., Daigle, L. E., et al. (2009). The empirical status of social learning theory: A meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 27, 765–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rogers, M. K. (2001). A social learning theory and moral disengagement analysis of criminal computer behavior: An exploratory study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Manitoba University, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  55. Skinner, W. F., & Fream, A. M. (1997). A social learning theory analysis of computer crime among college students. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 495–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Taylor, R. W., Fritsch, E. J., Liederbach, J., & Holt, T. J. (2010). Digital crime and digital terrorism (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  57. Tittle, C. R., Ward, D. A., & Grasmick, H. G. (2003). Gender, age, and crime/deviance: A challenge to self-control theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40, 426–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wall, D. S. (2001). Cybercrimes and the internet. In D. S. Wall (Ed.), Crime and the internet (pp. 1–17). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Warr, M. (2002). Companions in crime: The social aspects of criminal conduct. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Winfree, L. T., Taylor, T. J., He, N., & Esbensen, F. (2006). Self-control and variability over time: Multivariate results using a 5-year, multisite panel of youths. Crime and Delinquency, 52, 253–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wolack, J., Mitchell, K., & Finkelhor, D. (2006). Online victimization of youth: 5 years later. Washington: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.Google Scholar
  62. Wolfe, S. E., & Higgins, G. E. (2009). Explaining deviant peer associations: An examination of low self-control, ethical predispositions, definitions, and digital piracy. Western Criminology Review, 10, 43–55.Google Scholar
  63. Yar, M. (2005). Computer hacking: Just another case of juvenile delinquency? The Howard Journal, 44, 387–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Southern Criminal Justice Association 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas J. Holt
    • 1
  • Adam M. Bossler
    • 2
  • David C. May
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Criminal JusticeMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Justice Studies Program, Department of Political ScienceGeorgia Southern UniversityStatesboroUSA
  3. 3.Correctional & Juvenile Justice ServicesEastern Kentucky UniversityRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations