Lesson Four: Social Process Theories



Lesson Overview

In this lesson you learn about the theories of crime that emphasize the social processes by which "normal" people are influenced in the direction of deviant behavior. We begin with Sutherland's classic theory of differential association, briefly examine other learning theories, and finish up with control theories.

Lesson Objectives

1. Identify the background, as well as the strengths and weaknesses, of the following sociological theories of crime:

a. differential association theory--Sutherland

b. neutralization theory--Matza and Sykes

c. control theory--Hirschi

d. self-control theory--Gottfredson and Hirschi

2. Develop a point of view about the implications of multiple and competing theories in sociology:

a. Is a general theory possible? What would be its advantages?

b. Why are there so many competing theories and how are they useful(if they are)?

3. Be able to use some of the theories learned thus far in an analysis of the video, "Children of Violence." .

Reading Assignment

Barkan, chapter 7.

Viewing Assignment

"Children of Violence," on overnight reserve in the UMD library, VC 735

Study Notes

There is an important distinction in sociology (as well as economics) between macro and micro. Macro theories deal with large formal organizations and whole societies, with an emphasis on social structure, including the various forms of stratification.
Micro theories deal with small groups and face-to-face interaction. The last lesson was devoted to macro theories; this lesson takes up micro theories.

The most famous micro theory from the early development of American criminology is Edwin Sutherland's differential association theory. Sutherland set out to develop a theory which would have the same characteristics as other scientific theories, namely, that "the conditions which are said to cause crime should be present when crime is present, and they should be absent when crime is absent." Sutherland recognized that while some types of crime are more prevalent in minority communities, many individuals in those communities are law-abiding. Similarly, among the powerful and privileged, some are lawbreakers; some are not. His theory is intended to discriminate at the individual level between those who become lawbreakers and those who do not, whatever their race, class, or ethnic background.

His theory gives priority to the power of social influences and learning experiences and can be expressed in terms of a series of propositions. All nine of them are laid out in your text on pp. 176-177, but I believe I can condense them to just four essential statements, as follows:

1. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication.

2. That learning takes place primarily in intimate personal groups and includes not only the techniques of committing crime but the motives, rationalizations, and attitudes which accompany crime.

3. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity, and a person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law.

4. The learning process involves the same mechanisms whether a person is learning criminality or conformity.

Thus it isn't a lack of social organization that characterizes communities and neighborhoods high in crime, but a differential social organization--a set of practices and cultural definitions that are at odds with the law.As Sutherland puts it: "In an area where the delinquency rate is high, a boy who is sociable, gregarious, active, and athletic is very likely to come in contact with other boys in the neighborhood, learn delinquent behavior from them, and become a gangster; the psychopathic boy who is isolated, introverted and inert may remain at home, not become acquainted with other boys in the neighborhood, and not become delinquent." Of course, it's not only the psychopaths who don't get out. In their book Growing Up Poor, Williams and Kornblum come to recognize a group of super-achievers that come from neighborhoods where deviant values predominate but whose parents manage to keep them encircled in a round of nonstreet activities that centers around school, family, and church.

Notice too that it isn't just the quantity of associations that determines deviance or conformity, but also the intensity. Someone who spends only a few hours a week with you but whom you admire intensely may be more influential than hours and hours of everyday contacts. Williams and Kornblum come to the conclusion that mentors are one of the key factors differentiating delinquents and non-delinquents in the four communities they study.

As the first criminologist to give sustained attention to white collar and organizational crime, Sutherland is also concerned that his theory apply to those from more privileged class backgrounds. To understand the behavior of the corporate criminal, or for that matter the corrupt cop, Sutherland would direct us to the values and mores of that person's immediate social circle. "Most communities," says Sutherland, "are organized for both criminal and anticriminal behavior." Sutherland's theory directs us toward the network of key social relations that makes the key differences between the deviant and the conformist.

Sutherland's original hope is that we could put variables like the "frequency, intensity, and duration" of exposure to deviant and nondeviant definitions on a quasi-mathematical basis. Even if this isn't possible, and so far it has proved highly resistant to such specification, the real challenge of applying Sutherland's theory is to develop concrete criteria for these variables that are not after-the-fact. We have to be able to specify in advance of major law-breaking activities the networks and relationships that are propelling one individual toward crime and the other toward conformity. Many of you have probably seen the film, Boyz 'n the Hood. The two brothers, Darrin(Doughboy) and Ricky, in Boyz 'n the Hood, are a good example of how differential association theory can help to explain why two boys in much the same circumstances from a social structural perspective can nevertheless turn out very differently from a social process perspective.

. At the time he is gunned down, Ricky is just hours away from learning that his test scores have qualified him for college, while Darrin is clearly destined for life in the "hood." At that point, we can pretty readily specify the exposures and relationships that have pointed each brother in a different direction. Ricky's best friend, Trey, is also college-bound; coaches also play a role, because of Ricky's football skills; and the boys' mother has always related to Ricky in terms of what she believes will be his eventual achievements. On the other hand, Doughboy's friends are the classic dead-end kids, and his mother regards him much more negatively than Ricky.

What complicates our ability for a straightforward differential association explanation are the scenes earlier in the movie, for example, when Darrin and Trey and Ricky encounter older kids who take away Ricky's football. Already then Darrin is the one who is ready to take them on, while Ricky seems willing to accept the loss of his football. Have they already been shaped by differential associations? Ultimately what perhaps makes the greatest difference between the two brother's are Darrin's encounters with the police and his incarceration in a juvenile reformatory. That's where we might want to supplement Sutherland's differential association theory with another theory in the symbolic interactionist tradition, namely labeling theory, which we will pick up in the next lesson.

Don't worry about the details of the other learning theories layed out chapter 7. As Barkan puts it: "They agree on much more than they disagree, and all view crime and delinquency as an unfortunate consequence of 'wrong' socialization." Sutherland's was the first, and still the most versatile of the learning theories. We will use it again in a later lesson about public order crime and gangs.

Control theory

The other important family of social process theories is control theory. Barkan does a good job with these theories, and I want to give some extra attention to only the most influential version of control theory, that developed by Travis Hirschi. Hirschi's initial presentation of the theory was in conjunction with a large-scale survey study of the causes of delinquency at Richmond High School, Richmond, California, in the early 1960s. As Barkan points out, this is a theory that lends itself to relatively straightforward testing (much more easily than differential association theory, whose key elements are more difficult to measure), and at least 71 tests of the theory were published in the two decades after Hirschi's original publication. This is a good chance to emphasize something you've probably already been noticing about criminology as a science. There are some individual stars, people who put together an intriguing new theory (usually from elements of old ones) or a particularly ingenious research test of a theory. But the assessment and further development of a theory is very much a group process, involving a great deal of replication. Science is ultimately the product of a community of scientists. That's why publishing is such an essential part of the work of the professional sociologist or criminologist.

Hirschi's version of control theory begins with the assumption that we are all tempted to break society's rules, but that we are usually constrained by what Hirschi calls the social bond, which is the connection between ourselves and our society. This is a pretty abstract concept and it needs to be operationalized. In other words, how are we going to specify and measure this concept? Hirschi says we should think of the social bond in terms of four elements, each of which can be measured separately and their results added together. Those four elements are the following:

1. Attachment represents our ties of love and affection to other people. Barkan describes some of the questions Hirschi used to operationalize this concept for the teens in his survey, but it also applies to adults. Usually for adults attachment refers to our family relationships, especially our spouses (partners) and our children. We are less apt to be deviant if we believe our deviant behavior will hurt or embarrass people we care deeply about.

2. Commitment refers to the investment we have made in conventionally approved activities, especially those that have an economic payoff. Barkan says commitment refers to the amount of importance an individual places on conventional pursuits, such as getting a good education; that's a definition that makes it easy to measure commitment in a survey, but I don't think it's quite right. It has less to do with attitude than with the achievement of job seniority and any educational degrees that help us in obtaining jobs. If I think about committing a burglary, for example, I have to realize it jeopardizes the value both of my years in graduate school and my years at UMD, since academic employment would be much less accessible to a convicted felon. Someone who has dropped out of high school and never held a long-term job has less to lose.

These first two elements together constitute what control theorists would call our stake in conformity.

3. Involvement refers simply to the time spent on conventionally approved activities. As I do self-report surveys of deviant behavior in my introductory criminology classes, I sometimes think about the differences between some of the nontraditional students, who may have full-time jobs and families to support, and some of the more traditional 18-22-year-olds, who probably will never again in their lives have as much discretionary time as they have in college. Some people owe a life of virtue to the fact that they are too busy to get into trouble, and of course, this is one of the beliefs many parents share, when they encourage their kids to get involved in after-school sports and the like.

4. Beliefs. Some control theorists would not give this fourth element much weight, since we are (almost?) all familiar with the experience of acting contrary to our beliefs. Otherwise we'd never feel guilty. The whole weight of control theory, really, is to emphasize that beliefs are not enough. Control theorists tend to argue that in the absence of elements 1-3, beliefs are insufficient to keep most of us from giving way to temptation.

Control theory turns out to be the key to understanding a puzzling situation that emerged in a large-scale experiment to reduce domestic violence, which we will take up again in lesson 7. In the original study, Lawrence Sherman and Richard Berk enlisted the Minneapolis police in an experiment. When the police were called to a scene of domestic violence, after they had determined that the evidence supported an arrest, they contacted police headquarters and were randomly assigned either to make an arrest or to handle the situation informally. It turned out that offenders who were arrested were less apt to repeat their violence in the future. (Sherman and Berk, 1984) This research contributed importantly to the passage of mandatory arrest policies for domestic violence that were in enacted in many cities after 1984.

This, by the way, was contrary to their own recommendation. In their original article, Sherman and Berk cautioned against taking any policy action until their experiment could be replicated elsewhere. Replication refers to the process of duplicating a study under new conditions, and it is a key part of the scientific process, providing a safeguard against errors, bias, or simply generalizing from unusual conditions. In this case, the authors' caution proved well founded. Their research was subsequently replicated in Milwaukee; Dade County, Florida; Colorado Springs; Omaha; and Charlotte, North Carolina. In Colorado Springs and Dade County, replications confirmed the same deterrent effects of police arrest, but in the other three cities, not only were there no deterrent effects, arrests actually had the opposite effect--an apparent escalation of violence. Apparently at least some of the time being arrested so angered the offender that he increased his future level of violence.

That left policy-makers in a tough position. On the one hand, the feminist movement was insisting that violence against women be taken more seriously. There was also the issue of the message that a mandatory arrest policy sends to the more general population of potential offenders (what is called general deterrence ). But what if the mandatory arrest policy was actually increasing the overall level of violence against women in the society? At the very least, this was a phenomenon that cried out for further explanation. And when the explanation was found, in 1992, by Sherman and Smith, it involved one of the central concepts of control theory, namely, stake in conformity.

How could arrests for family violence produce less recidivism (repeat offending) in one locality and more in another? Sherman and Smith hypothesized that it might have to do with stake in conformity, which they thought would be a reflection of two additional variables, marital status and employment status. When they reanalyzed the data from the cities that had been involved in the mandatory arrest research, their hypothesis was supported:

If we ask whether arrest influences the subsequent violence of those arrested, the answer is that, in general, it depends on the arrested person's stake in conformity. Arrested persons who lacked a stake in conformity were significantly more likely to have a repeat offense than their counterparts who were not arrested. Conversely, among those who were married and employed, arrest deterred subsequent violence. (Sherman and Smith, 1992, p. 686)

The difference, then, between a city like Colorado Springs, where mandatory arrest had an overall deterrent effect, and Milwaukee, where it did not, had to do with the relative percentage of marriage and employment among the population involved in domestic violence calls to the police. In Colorado Springs, a substantial majority of the cases involved couples that were married and/or in which the offender had regular employment; in Milwaukee, the reverse was true.

In the conclusion of their article, Sherman and Smith take up an issue that we looked at early in this course--the relative role of formal and informal social control. Formal social control, you will remember, refers to actions by the criminal justice system; informal social control refers to pressures and influences located in the community, in people's informal relationships with family and peers. Some criminologist have argued in favor of what they call they call the replacement hypothesis, which says that as informal social control systems break down, more and more formal social control is needed. The Sherman and Berk research casts doubt on this hypothesis. Where the informal social control that comes from committed relationships and steady employment are lacking, formal social control is less effective and perhaps sometimes even counterproductive. Sherman and Smith also recognize that their research doesn't resolve the underlying policy issue Are we going to arrest married people who commit domestic violence and not arrest the unmarried? Arrest the employed and not the unemployed? Obviously not. "Yet a policy of arresting all offenders may simply produce more violence among suspects who have a low stake in conformity." (Sherman and Smith, 1992, p. 688). We will pursue this issue further in lesson 7.

Why can't the research process give us simpler answers? Most if not all of the theories you have been reading about in lessons three and four were intended by their creators to serve as general theories that would ultimately simplify our understanding of crime and criminals. Certainly control theory was intended that way. Its creators hoped it could be used to explain everything from domestic violence to juvenile delinquency, from crime in the streets to crime in the suites. But as Barkan points out in your text, even in Hirschi's initial research with high schoolers in Richmond, California, some of his hypotheses were not supported. Hirschi expected, for example, that youths with part-time jobs would be less delinquent because of their greater stake in conformity. But it turned out that youths with jobs were actually more likely to be delinquent, although the correlation was rather weak. Hirschi had also hypothesized that attachment to friends would reduce deviance; it turned out that attachment to deviant friends did the opposite. Even as his theory gained support in the ensuing years, Hirschi himself got discouraged with it and turned elsewhere in his search for a truly general theory of crime.

Self-Control Theory

In the late 1980s, Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson proposed a theory that sounds like an offshoot of control theory but really is not. Where control theory emphasized how social ties and commitment to societal institutions create a stake in conformity, the new theory emphasizes the personality type of the deviant. Deviants are people who pursue "short-term gratification in the most direct way with little consideration for the long-term consequences of their acts." (Hirschi and Gottfredson, 1987, p. 959)

The great appeal of self-control theory is its claim finally to have identified the universal element in deviant behavior. Violent husbands, greedy corporate executives, street muggers, and corrupt officials--all are marked by this characteristic lack of self-control. The particularities of their criminal history depend on their opportunities, but they are basically the same types of people. What's more, their lack of self-control will show up not only in criminal activity, but in other aspects of their lives--problems in school, unstable job histories, failed marriages, drug and alcohol problems, and the like.

What are the sources of this lack of self-control? Hirschi and Gottfredson relate it primarily to ineffective patterns of child-rearing. This is what makes their theory sociological or at least social psychological. They are not talking about inborn traits but about a trait which reflects a breakdown of parenting (and perhaps also schooling).(1)

Michael Benson and Elizabeth Moore (1992) have taken one of the central claims of self-control theory, namely the insistence that white collar criminals are basically the same type of people as street criminals, and subjected it to an empirical test. Their data comes from a project that was examining sentencing patterns in federal district courts. For eight federal court districts between 1973 and 1978, they were able to get information on 2,462 individuals sentenced for white collar crimes and 1,986 individuals sentenced for what they call common crimes(basically the same as what I have been calling street crimes).

The Hirschi and Gottfredson theory argues that white collar offenders, like street criminals, will not specialize in their crimes, but will tend to have a diverse history of criminal offenses and problems in adjustment that reflect their lack of self-control. Benson and Moore were able to get information on prior arrests, drug and alcohol use, and academic performance and adjustment in high school. They find that there is a small subset of white collar offenders, about 16%, who are very similar to the street criminals. But overall the differences are more striking than the similarities.

Thus 81% of the common criminals, but only 39% of the white collar criminals have prior arrest records. The common criminals have 5.63 mean average arrests overall, compared with 1.79 for the white collar criminals. Almost half the common criminals had problems in school adjustment, compared with less than one fourth of the white collar criminals. Almost half of the common criminals are reported to have used illegal drugs, compared to only 6% of the white collar criminals.

Benson and Moore conclude:

It is easy to agree with Gottfredson and Hirschi that persons with little or no self-control probably are prone to engaging in a wide variety of criminal and deviant acts. However, as our research and that of others shows, the majority of those who commit white-collar offenses do not display this kind of generalized deviance... these offenders have at least moderate, if not considerable, self-control. (1992, pp. 265-266)

Benson and Moore find that there are three distinct routes to white-collar crime. The first route reflects individuals with low self control and for these offenders, Gottfredson and Hirschi are right that it makes no sense to differentiate them from other common criminals. The second route involves individuals with high self-control, who build on the "culture of competition" that seems to be a part of American capitalism to justify the pursuit of their own self-interest at any cost. These are the Michael Millikens and other big-time white collar criminals. The third, and probably most common route, picks up on a different aspect of the culture of competition, the need to protect one's position in the face of the threat of failure. "Self-reports from white-collar offenders suggest that they often are motivated not so much by greed as by a desire merely to hang onto what they already have." (Benson and Moore, 1992, p. 267)

Barkan summarizes the research relating to self-control theory as follows: "In sum, although self-control theory may help explain some crimes, it doesn't seem to offer the general theory of crime its authors intended." (p. 198)

A General Theory of Crime?

Is it possible to create a general theory of crime? One of the problems is the sheer diversity of crime, which becomes even more apparent when we look at crime cross-culturally. One society may criminalize theological nonconformity; another treats people as criminals based on their political activities; a third has a legal system that rejects religion and politics as areas of criminal sanction but has used its criminal justice system to punish people who defied its racial segregation laws.

Does this mean that a general theory of crime is impossible? I don't expect criminologists will ever give up this search. The basic wellspring of sociological theorizing is probably the desire to create simple and elegant explanations of what is really an incredibly complex reality. My own favorite candidate for a general theory of crime is a variation of the Matza and Sykes treatment of neutralizations, grouped with control theories by Barkan. In their research with juvenile delinquents, Matza and Sykes find that juvenile delinquents mostly support conventional norms, but the delinquents see their own behavior as an allowable exception to those norms. A neutralization is a self-justification which allows the violation of a norm that you would ordinarily uphold. The most common neutralizations used by kids in trouble with the law are laid out by Barkan on p. 185.

This same idea has been elaborated by Sculley and Marolla in an interview study of 114 convicted rapists serving time in prison. Only 8% of the group reported feeling any guilt after the rape, and only 2 of 114 expressed any concern or feeling for the victim. How is it possible for these men to commit such heinous acts without being wracked by guilt? Although they do not use the Matza/Sykes terminology, Sculley and Marolla find several widespread neutralizations that are used to justify rape. The most common, which closely parallels "denial of the victim," emphasizes the rape as an act of revenge. This woman deserved to be raped because of some evil, real or imagined, that the man's wife or girlfriend committed on him in the past. A second common theme is like the Matza and Sykes category, "Denial of Injury." Women who are picked up at a party or in a bar or while hitchhiking have signaled their sexual availability and have no right not to submit. A third theme, related to gang rape, parallels the Matza/Sykes "Appeal to Higher Loyalties." The rapist's loyalty to the male peer group wipes out any possible concern with the victim as a person: "We felt powerful, we were in control. I wanted sex and there was peer pressure. She wasn't like a person, no personality, just domination on my part. Just to show I could do it--you know, macho."(Sculley and Marolla, 1985, p. 260)

I see the work by Matza and Sykes, as well as the work by Sculley and Marollis, as closely related to a theoretical tradition that emerged in social psychology in the mid-1950s. At that time Leon Festinger was researching a doomsday cult whose predictions about the end of the world failed to come true. How do people handle such a fundamental disappointment in a belief system to which they seem deeply committed? Festinger found that the ability of the human mind to generate rationalizations to cover up unpleasant realities is astounding. He coined the term cognitive dissonance to refer to a powerful pressure that is created when people try to maintain in their minds two or more beliefs, attitudes, or emotions that are psychologically inconsistent. One of Festinger's proteges, Elliott Aronson, elaborated the original theory, noting that 1)the dissonance is particularly strong when it directly involves our self-esteem; and 2) that we typically resolve such dissonances through a process of rationalization or self-justification. In his book, The Social Animal, Aronson describes an experiment by David Glass in which individuals who consider themselves good and decent people are induced to give a series of electric shocks to other people in a laboratory setting. These people convince themselves that the shocks are deserved, and this dynamic is strongest among those with the highest self-esteem. Aronson puts it this way: "It is precisely because I think I am such a nice person that, if I do something that causes you pain, I must convince myself that you are a rat." (Aronson, 1995, p. 220)

Unlike the Gottfredson and Hirschi hypothesis about lack of self-control, this self-justification dynamic clearly reaches across the gap between street crime and white collar crime. Donald Cressey's research with embezzlers is described in his book, Other People's Money(1971). Cressey finds that embezzlers tend to be people who see themselves as facing problem for which conventional help isn't available. A solution presents itself in the form of a rationalization that allows the embezzler to take from her or his employer without thinking of herself/himself as a thief. "I'll pay it back when my luck turns," is one popular rationalization. analysis of embezzlers from lesson three. Thus it's not just juvenile delinquents and rapists but also white collar criminals who have this need to justify what they're doing, even when it's illegal, or perhaps especially when it's illegal.

Cressey, like Matza and Sykes, argues that the rationalization actually precedes the act and is not simply an after-the-fact rationalization. This is an area that probably deserves more investigation. One common distinction in criminology is between crimes that are impulsive versus crimes that involve at least some degree of planning. This is not so much a dichotomy as a continuum, with criminal acts showing various degrees of planning. My suspicion is that rationalizations are developed in advance for those crimes that are closer to the planning end of the continuum and probably also for impulsive crimes that are repeated.

Even if rationalization turned out to be a universal aspect of crime, it would clearly be only part of the story. In a way it just takes us back to differential association theory, since it would probably turn out that many of these rationalizations are learned from other people (or from the mass media) and not something that the individual offender invents for herself/himself. In the closing section of chapter 7, Barkan argues that if we are ultimately successful in creating a general theory of crime, it will have to include aspects of both social structure and social process.

I think it is ultimately most fruitful to view the theories you are reading about here as addressing different questions and therefore at least somewhat complementary, rather than competing directly with each other. One of the distinctively American contributions to the philosophy of science and knowledge is known as Pragmatism. The pragmatists believe that the best test of the truth of a particular theory or proposition is its usefulness. This seems particularly appropriate in an area like criminology, where one of the primary motivations in theory building is doubtless the desire to reduce the amount of crime in a particular society (certainly that hope is the main reason criminological research is relatively well funded, compared with other areas of sociology).

You will remember that in the early 20th century, the popular theory of crime among the general public and to some degree among early sociologists was that it reflected the genetic and biological inferiority of the new immigrants. The solution was quite straightforward, implemented on a national basis in the 1920s: Keep out the foreigners, particularly the Jews and Catholics from Southern and Eastern Europe, and it confirmed the U.S. on a racist path for another 20-30 years. The earliest truly sociological theories of crime developed in opposition to these racist theories, but they too had a practical bent, as University of Chicago criminologists sought to reduce perils of the City. Ultimately I suspect that is also the criterion you will want to use in sorting out the appeal of the theories you have been studying. Which ones point you toward changes and interventions that will create a society in which people are more secure in their property, and especially their persons?

References

Aronson, Elliot. The Social Animal. 7th edition. W.H. Freeman. 1995.

Benson, Michael, and Moore, Elizabeth. "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. Vol. 29 No. 3. August 1992. pp. 251-272.

Cressey, Donald. Other People's Money: A Study in the Social Psychology of Embezzlement. Wadsworth Publising. 1971.

Hirschi, Travis, and Gottfredson, Michael. "Toward a General Theory of Crime." Explaining Crime: Interdisciplinary Approaches. edited by Wouter Buikhuisen and Sarnoff Mednick. Brill. 1987. pp. 8-26.

Sculley, Diana, and Marolla, Joseph. "Riding the Bull at Gilley's: Convicted Rapists Describe the Rewards of Rape." Social Problems, vol. 32 no. 3, 1985, pp. 251-263.

Sherman, Lawrence, and Berk, Richard. "The Specific Deterrent Effects of Arrest for Domestic Assault," American Sociological Review, vol. 49, 1984, pp. 261-272.

Sherman, Lawrence and Smith, Douglas. "Crime, Punishment, and Stake in Conformity: Legal and Informal Control of Domestic Violence." American Sociological Review. Volume 57, October 1992, pp. 680-690.

Williams, Terry and Kornblum, William. Growing Up Poor. 1985. Lexington Books.

Written Assignment: 10 points possible



Create a list of 10 recommendations for reducing crime in American society. The first five should be ambitious changes that might be difficult to implement but which you truly believe could create a society in which people are safer and more secure from crime. The second five should be more practical in the sense that they are perhaps less costly or more likely to really be implemented. Justify each recommendation with a discussion of the relevant portion of one of the theories you have studied in lessons six and seven.



1. 1Their theory could readily be modified by including physical conditions, like Attention Deficit Disorder, as additional sources of low self-control.