5.11. Control Theories 
BRIAN FEDOREK 
Previously discussed theories asked why people commit crime. The methods used tried to identify the 
driving forces behind a criminal’s behavior. For example, biological and psychological theories sought to 
identify traits that determined criminality. Strain theories assumed people were good, but bad things happen, 
which causes many to be pushed into criminal behaviors. Learning theories demonstrated the importance 
of learning criminal attitudes to commit crimes. These attitudes, especially when reinforced, will prevail in 
social situations. Control theories differ in their approach. Instead of assuming criminals have “something” 
or experienced “something” that drives their criminal behavior, control theories ask why more people do 
not engage in illegal behavior. Control theories assume people are naturally selfish, and if left to their own 
devices, will commit illegal and immoral acts. Control theories try to identify what types of “controls” a 
person may have that stops them from becoming “uncontrollable.” 
Early control theorists argued that there are multiple controls on individuals. Personal controls are 
exercised through reflection and following pro-social normative behavior. Social controls originate in social 
institutions like family, school, and religious conventions. Toby (1957) introduced the phrase “stakes in 
conformity,” which is how much a person has to lose if he or she engages in criminal behavior.
1 The more 
stakes in conformity a person has, the less likely they would be willing to commit crime. For example, a 
married teacher with kids has quite a bit to lose if he or she decided to start selling drugs. If caught, he could 
lose his job, get divorced, and possibly lose custody of his children. However, juveniles tend not to have 
kids nor are they married. They may have a job, but indeed not a career. Since they have fewer stakes in 
conformity, they would be much more likely to commit crime compared to the teacher. 
Travis Hirschi is most associated with control theories. In 1969, he argued that all humans have the 
propensity to commit crime, but those who have strong bonds and attachment to social groups like family 
and school are less likely to commit crime. 
2Often known as social bond theory or social control theory, 
Hirschi presented four elements of a social bond – attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. 
Attachment refers to affection we have towards others. If we have strong bonds, we are more likely to care 
about their opinions, expectations, and support. Attachment involves an emotional connectedness to others, 
especially parents, who provide indirect control. 
1. Toby, J. (1957). Social disorganization and stake in conformity: Complementary factors in the predatory behavior of hoodlums. Journal 
of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 48, 12-17. 
2. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 
183