Hirschi’s Social Control Theory of Crime

Introduction

Hirschi’s theory says people follow the rules not because they’re afraid of punishment, but because they’re connected to others and care about their future. When those social bonds are weak, the chances of breaking the rules go up.

Hirschi’s Social Control Theory, also known as Social Bonding Theory, offers a sociological explanation for why individuals choose to conform to social rules instead of engaging in criminal activity.

The theory operates on the assumption that human nature is fundamentally self-interested or selfish, and thus, the primary question is not why people commit crime, but rather, why they do not.

The core argument of Travis Hirschi’s theory is that conformity to social norms depends on the presence of strong social bonds between individuals and society.

Deviance, conversely, is the result of weak social ties or a feeling of disconnection from society.

If these social bonds are weak, the likelihood of deviance increases, as the individual has little incentive to follow the rules of society.

This perspective reflects the views of Émile Durkheim, who stressed that strong social norms and ties reduce deviance by limiting individual desires and establishing a strong collective conscience

Hirschi: Bonds of Attachment

Hirschi identified four key elements, or components, of the social bond that integrate people into conventional society and promote conformity.

If these bonds become weak or broken, the probability of deviant behaviour increases significantly, as the individual has little incentive to follow the rules of society.

1. Attachment

Attachment measures an individual’s connection and loyalty to conventional groups or individuals.

When individuals are closely attached to people, such as family, friends, or romantic partners, they become concerned with their opinions.

People conform to society’s norms primarily to gain approval and prevent disapproval from those individuals they value.

The stronger the attachment to families and schools, the less likely a youth is to be deviant.

2. Commitment

Commitment refers to the degree to which an individual values their participation in conventional social goals and activities.

This component relates to the investment an individual has made in socially accepted pursuits, such as getting a good education.

The greater the investment and commitment to these conventional activities, the less deviant the person will be because they have too much to lose if they violate social norms.

This component emphasizes that individuals who believe their hard work will be rewarded are more likely to conform.

3. Involvement

Involvement refers to the amount of time an individual spends participating in approved social activities.

When people spend more time actively engaged in conventional pursuits, they have less opportunity to participate in deviant behaviour.

This participation also places the individual in contact with people whose opinions they value. Examples of such activities include schoolwork or extracurriculars.

4. Belief

Belief is the acceptance of society’s common values and norms.

If a person views social values as legitimate and agrees with the appropriateness of society’s rules, they are more likely to conform to them.

For example, a belief in a clean environment as a social value might motivate an environmentalist to pick up litter in a park.

A greater belief in these norms translates to less deviation.

Examples

Instead of focusing only on what causes crime, Hirschi’s Social Control Theory reminds us to look at what prevents it: connection, trust, and belonging.

When people feel bonded to others, believe in the rules, and see a future worth protecting, they’re much more likely to stay on the right path.

1. Everyday Behaviour and Why We Follow the Rules

Social bonds guide our daily actions, often without us even realizing it. Here’s how they show up in everyday life:

• Attachment to Others: People tend to behave better when they care what others think. For example, someone might avoid lying or stealing because they don’t want to disappoint a parent, partner, or close friend.

• Belief in Right and Wrong: If someone truly believes in shared values—like keeping the environment clean—they’re more likely to act in line with those beliefs, such as picking up litter or recycling.

• Commitment to the Future: People who are working hard toward goals, like finishing school or building a career, don’t want to risk losing everything. So they’re more likely to avoid behaviour that could ruin those plans.

• Involvement in Positive Activities: The more time people spend on schoolwork, clubs, sports, or hobbies, the less time they have to get into trouble. Staying busy in good ways keeps people focused and connected.

• Using These Ideas in Institutions: Schools and organisations often build on this theory. For example, some colleges ask students to sign an honesty pledge to strengthen their commitment to academic values.

---

2. Why Some Young People Get Into Trouble

Hirschi’s theory is especially helpful in understanding youth delinquency—why some young people break the rules while others don’t.

Family Bonds Matter (Attachment)

• Home Life and Risk: Teens living with only one parent or in blended families are often at higher risk for things like fighting, substance use, and skipping school—especially if the home lacks warmth, consistency, or supervision.

• Parental Influence: Kids whose parents have been in trouble with the law are more likely to act out themselves. This shows how values and behaviours can be passed down through family relationships.

School Bonds Matter (Commitment & Involvement)

• Feeling Connected Helps: Teens who feel close to their teachers, enjoy school, and care about doing well are less likely to get into trouble, even if they face other challenges.

• Evidence from Research: A Canadian study found that “high-risk” kids were much less likely to misbehave if they had strong school bonds in childhood—like enjoying class or finishing homework.

• Discipline Can Backfire: Harsh rules like zero-tolerance policies (e.g. suspensions or expulsions) can weaken students’ connection to school—sometimes making misbehaviour more likely, not less.

---

3. How This Theory Can Help Prevent Crime

Social Control Theory shows that keeping people connected is one of the best ways to prevent crime. Here are some ideas based on that insight:

• Support for Families: Programs that help parents build better relationships with their kids—especially in homes dealing with stress, conflict, or poverty—can reduce future risk of crime.

• Help from the Start: Early support programs for children in difficult situations (like single-parent households or families facing hardship) can strengthen attachment and reduce future issues.

• More Positive Activities: Giving young people access to after-school clubs, sports, art, or job training helps fill their time with positive involvement and reduces boredom or negative peer pressure.

• Better School Experiences: Schools can reduce problem behaviour by helping students feel more connected and supported, not just punished. This includes mentoring programs, flexible learning, and creating a positive school culture.

Strengths

The primary strength of Hirschi’s theory lies in its explanatory power, widespread popularity, and practical application, particularly regarding youth behaviour.

1. Strong Empirical Support

The core idea behind Hirschi’s Social Control Theory – that weak social bonds increase the risk of deviance—has been supported by a large body of research.

Studies consistently show that young people with weaker emotional ties to parents and schools are more likely to engage in delinquent behaviour (Costello & Vowell, 1999; Demuth & Brown, 2004).

Research generally confirms Hirschi’s claim that strong attachment to family and commitment to school can reduce the likelihood of youth offending (Cernkovich & Giordano, 1987; Hirschi, 1969).

His theory also encouraged sociologists to look beyond individual choices and consider how the broader social environment shapes people’s values and behaviour, especially during adolescence.

At its core, control theory offers a micro-level explanation: people learn to conform because they value their relationships and want to maintain the approval of those they care about – like friends, family, or classmates.

In other words, individuals avoid deviance because they don’t want to “lose face” with those whose opinions matter most (Hirschi, 1969; Colvin & Pauly, 1983).

2. Utility as a Protective Factor Framework

The theory is highly valuable for understanding and implementing preventative measures against delinquency, especially among high-risk populations.

• Hirschi’s emphasis on strong social bonds provides crucial insights into factors that protect individuals from deviating.
• The concepts of attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief suggest specific areas for intervention.
• For instance, studies show that strong school bonds help prevent delinquency, even for youths identified as being at high risk for such behaviour (e.g., those born to teenaged mothers or who exhibited aggressive behaviour).
• The theory has been very popular because it suggests several strategies for crime prevention. These structural solutions include programs designed to improve parenting and relations between parents and children, as well as improving the nation’s schools to strengthen the bonds children feel to those institutions.
• Sociological understanding suggests that much conventional crime is ultimately rooted in negative family functioning and negative peer relationships.

3. Conceptual Clarity

The theory presents a clear and straightforward explanation of conformity (rather than crime) based on easily defined components:

Social Control Theory is distinct in that it asks not why people deviate, but why people do not commit deviance, grounding the explanation in the restraining power of social bonds.

The theory highlights that conformity to norms depends on the strength of social bonds.

It specifically names the four essential elements needed to create strong social bonds: Attachment, Commitment, Involvement, and Belief.

---

Criticisms 

Despite its popularity and empirical success, the theory faces methodological and theoretical scrutiny, primarily concerning causality.

1. The Problem of Causal Order (“Chicken and Egg” Dilemma)

The most significant limitation raised by critics centres on the direction of causation, often referred to as the “chicken and egg” question.

Hirschi assumed that weakened social bonds cause subsequent delinquency.

However, critics argue that the causal relationship might be reversed.

For example, empirical studies show delinquent youths often have worse relationships with their parents than non-delinquent youths, but it remains unclear whether the bad relationship prompted the delinquency, or if the youths’ ongoing delinquent behaviour worsened the relationship with their parents.

Alternatively, critics suggest that people who routinely engage in deviant behaviour may find that their bonds to conventional, positive influences are subsequently weakened over time.

2. Methodological Scope Limitations

While testing the theory, limitations concerning the original study’s scope have been noted.

Although Hirschi did not include females in his original research, later replication studies found that the theory appears to apply to both females and males.

3. Broader Contextual Critique (Implied)

While the sources do not provide direct sociological critiques of SCT’s underlying philosophy, SCT is generally viewed as a Positivist approach.

Positivist theories, as a whole, focus on macro-level structures and social facts that propel behaviour.

If critiqued from an Interpretivist viewpoint, SCT might be seen as insufficiently concerned with the individual ideas, subjective meanings, and interpretations that govern specific deviant choices.

SCT’s reliance on empirical measurement of bonds links it to positivist methodologies that use official statistics.

These statistics have been criticized by Interpretivists and Marxists for being socially constructed by those in power, meaning the statistics may reflect police bias or the interests of the capitalist class rather than the true extent of criminal behaviour. 

References

Agnew, R. (1986). Work and delinquency among juveniles attending school. Journal of Crime and Justice, 9(1), 19-41.

Agnew, R. (1991). A longitudinal test of social control theory and delinquency. Journal of research in crime and delinquency, 28(2), 126-156.

Black, D. (1983). Crime as social control. American Sociological Review, 34-45.

Bredekamp, H. (2020). Thomas Hobbes-Der Leviathan. De Gruyter.

Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling juvenile delinquency. Juv. Ct. Judges J., 2, 32.

Heimer, K., & Matsueda, R. L. (1994). Role-taking, role commitment, and delinquency: A theory of differential social control. American Sociological Review, 365-390.

Hindelang, M. J. (1973). Causes of delinquency: A partial replication and extension. Social Problems, 20(4), 471-487.

Hirschi, T. (1969). Key idea: Hirschi’s social bond/social control theory. Key Ideas in Criminology and Criminal Justice,(1969), 55-69.

Hirschi, T. (1986). On the compatibility of rational choice and social control theories of crime. The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending, 105-118.

Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. (1983). Age and the explanation of crime. American Journal of Sociology, 89(3), 552-584.

Janowitz, M. (1975). Sociological theory and social control. American Journal of Sociology, 81(1), 82-108.

Johnson, K. A. (1984). The applicability of social control theory in understanding adolescent alcohol use. Sociological Spectrum, 4(2-3), 275-294.

Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (1993). Turning points in the life course: Why change matters to the study of crime. Criminology, 31(3), 301-325

Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta‐analysis. Criminology, 38(3), 931-964.

Reckless, W. C. (1961). The crime problem. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Wiatrowski, M. D. (1978). Social control theory and delinquency. Portland State University.