INTRODUCTION

In 1990 in the United States, Michael Gottfredson^[1] and Travis Hirschi^[2] formulated one of the most prominent and empirically tested theories in the field of criminology to this day. The central premise of the theory is extremely straightforward. In short, Gottfredson and Hirschi argued that virtually all forms of antisocial and criminal behaviour were associated with one underlying individual characteristic, low self-control. Given the proposition that this trait was associated with virtually all forms of antisocial behaviour, they named their theory the General Theory of Crime, although it is more often referred to as low self-control theory.

This chapter provides an overview of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s low self-control theory. First, the basis for, and manifestation of, low self-control is explained according to the original theory by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990). Second, the measurement of low self-control in criminological research is explained, and research studies on the link between low self-control and different types of criminal behaviour are discussed. Finally, this chapter concludes with a discussion of critiques and limitations of low self-control theory, and the state of contemporary criminological research on the theory.

THEORY DESCRIPTION

To begin to understand the fundamental basis of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s low self-control theory, it is useful to first highlight a key assumption it makes about human nature. For example, if we ask the question ‘how does an individual become criminal?’ the underlying assumption in that question is that humans are born inherently good or at least ‘criminally neutral,’ and therefore must somehow acquire antisocial or criminal motivations and behaviours. An example of this would be that people learn these behaviours from other sources, such as peers, which is what social learning theories propose. On the other hand, if we take a fundamentally different view of human nature, one that assumes people are not born inherently good or neutral, but rather one that assumes humans are inherently hedonistic in that they seek pleasure and avoid pain, then the question needs to change to ‘what is it that stops individuals from engaging in antisocial/criminal behaviour?’ From this perspective the acquisition of specific criminal motivations does not need to be explained because they are inherent in our nature; we seek pleasure and avoid pain and antisocial and criminal acts typically provide at least short-term gratification to individual needs and or wants. Here, what needs to be explained is why some people fail to learn not to commit crimes while others refrain from committing crimes.

For example, if two young people are walking down the street and come across a parked car with the windows down, a $50 note sitting on the passenger seat, and no one in sight, why does one young person instinctively grab the $50 note and put it in their pocket even though it does not belong to them while for the other the thought did not even cross their mind? What is the difference between these two young people? Explaining this is the central premise of what are referred to as control theories in criminology.

Unlike social learning theories (see Chapter 10) that argue criminal behaviour is learned through various means (e.g., peers), the General Theory of Crime is considered a control theory which essentially means that it explains criminal behaviour as a function of restraint, or more precisely a lack thereof. From this perspective criminal behaviour is the result of an individual’s inability to control their impulses, wants, or desires, rather than a behaviour that is learned. Criminal acts provide relatively immediate gratification to basic wants and needs. For example, instead of saving up money over time to buy something, one can simply steal it. Gottfredson and Hirschi refer to the inability to control impulses, wants and desires as low self-control; a lack in capacity of individuals to resist temptation and delay gratification. But where does this inability to control impulses come from? When does it begin?

The Cause of Low Self-Control

Anyone who has raised children will tell you that much of parenting infants, toddlers and children involves explaining to them and teaching them what not to do, a lot of the time. For example, young children need to be taught that striking a sibling when they take a toy from them is not acceptable because it can hurt the other child. At the same time, young children must be taught that when they want something someone else has, they cannot just take it from them without asking because this may upset the other child. In short, much of parenting involves teaching children what not to do with the aim that they will eventually develop their own inner restraint mechanisms to regulate impulses on their own, or in other words, develop self-control.

According to Gottfredson and Hirschi, effective parenting practices are the fundamental basis for the development of self-control. From this perspective, low self-control results from inadequate and ineffective parenting beginning in early childhood. They argued that families that lack emotionally supportive behaviours, supervision, and the recognition of deviant or delinquent behaviours, children will typically not develop the skills to effectively restrain their own behaviours and emotions. Indeed, there are many reasons that discipline, supervision, and/or affection may be missing in some families. In some cases, parents simply may not care about how their children behave and are not bothered when their children act out and therefore do nothing to correct such behaviours when they occur. In other families, financial stress and work commitments may mean that some parents simply do not have the time or energy to routinely monitor, recognise, and correct bad behaviours, even though they may fully intend to do so to the best of their abilities. Other parents may not see anything wrong with children’s behaviour when they are acting out and therefore do not feel the need to correct it. While some parents may not have the inclination or means to care, and others may just be extremely lenient, inconsistent, restrictive, harsh, and punitive parenting can also have adverse consequences on the development of self-control. Here, the absence of positive socialisation on behalf of parents can also result in children not being able to delay their gratification.

Importantly, according to the theory, these early experiences set the stage for the future where low self-control manifests in many ways throughout the life-course. Gottfredson and Hirschi argued that the development of self-control is largely established in about the first 10 years of life and remains consistent after that. In other words, by the age of 10 years old if an individual has poor or low self-control, they will likely be characterised by low self-control for the rest of their lives. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) described individuals with low self-control as “impulsive, insensitive, physical (as opposed to mental), risk-taking, shortsighted, and nonverbal, and they will tend therefore to engage in criminal and analogous acts” (p.90).

A central tenet of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s low self-control theory is that self-control is established in childhood and remains relatively stable over the life-course. But what does low self-control look like at different stages in life? Let’s consider the quote above taken from the General Theory of Crime. According to Gottfredson and Hirschi, individuals characterised by low self-control are impulsive. In other words, people characterised by low self-control are more likely to engage in short term satisfaction of their impulses; they are more likely to smoke, drink alcohol, do drugs, gamble, and be sexually promiscuous, for example. Many criminal acts also typically provide easy or simple gratification of desires and are often exciting, or dangerous, and involve deception or even power. For example, stealing a car and joy riding can be exciting and dangerous and even give a sense of control or power. Many crimes also offer short term relief from momentary irritations, such as hitting a child who will not stop screaming. In the case of intimate partner violence, an individual might strike their partner because they are frustrated with them and cannot control their temper. These types of behaviours are also extremely insensitive and often reflect the volatile temperaments of the perpetrators.

Many crimes have victims who suffer in one way or another because of the crime. Individuals can suffer fear as the result of a home invasion or physical attack, thefts can leave people with expenses they can no longer afford and so on. Thus, the perpetrators of such crimes often tend to be self-centred, selfish, insensitive to the pain, suffering or difficulties of others. However, individuals characterised by low self-control are not necessarily always criminal. For example, insensitivity toward others can manifest in many different forms, such as being manipulative and charming to gain short-term trust and get something one wants. A good example of this would be where a person in a bar lies to someone they just met about their job and wealth to look more attractive with the aim of getting them to have sex that night with the intention of never talking to them again after they do.

Despite media representations of criminal masterminds and criminal geniuses, most crimes are ones of opportunity and typically require minimal planning or cognitive skills. Thus, Gottfredson and Hirschi argued that criminal behaviours appeal to individuals who lack diligence, tenacity, and persistence to perform difficult tasks. According to them, these individuals therefore will opt for seemingly simpler tasks that in their view may give them the same benefit. A good non-criminal example of this is cheating in university. However, because of these types of tendencies, individuals characterised by low self-control are also more likely to experience unstable marriages, jobs, and friendships. The reason for this is due to their inability to see things through when they become difficult. These adversities can also often be a consequence of the tendency to respond to conflict through physical means rather than mental or verbal ones. In the intimate partner context, a partner may use physical violence against their partner after having an argument instead of making a compromise or talking through how to resolve relationship problems. In a different context, another example would be a person using physical violence against someone who cut in front of them in a queue instead of calmly asking them to go back to their place or simply ignoring them. Such behaviours also reflect the tendency towards being non-verbal (i.e., dealing with conflict through physical rather than mental means).

Finally, Gottfredson and Hirschi argued that individuals characterised by low self-control prefer physical activities over non-physical ones and are also characterised by a ‘here and now’ or ‘living in the moment’ orientation that guides their behaviour. Therefore, individuals characterised by low self-control tend to be more adventuresome and drawn to high-risk activities which may or may not be antisocial. This might include things ranging from sky diving or other extreme sports, to driving without due care or stealing a car and recklessly joy riding and crashing into things. This is also why they argued that people characterised by low self-control are more likely to experience things like injuries and accidents which may harm themselves or others.

Gottfredson and Hirschi argued that there is a considerable tendency for the traits described above (i.e., impulsivity, insensitivity/self-centredness, preference for simple tasks, physicality, risk-taking, volatile temperament) to come together in the same people and persist throughout the life-course of these individuals. In effect, they argued that low self-control is a relatively stable trait, and changing opportunity structures over the life course mean that it will manifest in different forms at different times. As one of the most empirically tested theories in criminology, there is no shortage of research studies on the link between low self-control, and adverse and problematic outcomes in life including criminal behaviour. Therefore, the next section begins by explaining how low self-control is measured in criminological research and describes various studies linking it to different consequences.

THEORY APPLICATION

In their original theory, Gottfredson and Hirschi never actually defined low self-control, but rather, as in the previous section, gave examples of the types of behaviours that people characterised by low self-control would be more likely to engage in compared to people with higher levels of self-control. This also led to one of the key criticisms of the theory; that it is tautological^[3]. In short, involvement in crime is an indicator of low self-control, and low self-control is why individuals commit crime. From this perspective, critics argued that the theory has little inherent explanatory value (e.g., Akers 1991, Barlow, 1991). As a result, researchers over the years have focused on different ways of measuring low self-control and its relationship to crime across various samples of individuals (e.g., community members, university students, prisoners etc.).

Measuring low self-control in criminological research

In general, researchers aiming to measure low self-control have taken one of two approaches. The first involves observing and measuring behavioural indicators of low self-control. This has often involved measuring the relationship between behaviours that are similar to, but not defined as, criminal acts. For example, Keane and colleagues (1993) considered seatbelt use as an indicator of self-control. They observed that neglecting to wear a seatbelt was associated with an increased likelihood of drinking, gambling, and drunk driving. Other early studies examined the link between behavioural indicators of low self-control reported by teachers, parents, peers and social workers and criminal convictions in adolescence (Polakowski, 1994). Here, some examples of behavioural indicators of low self-control included: parent reports of their children’s risk-taking/daring behaviours and bad behaviour in the home; peer reports of troublesome behaviour; and teacher reports of student’s lack of concentration in class and being disruptive in class. Polakowski (1994) found that these behavioural measures of low self-control were associated with criminal convictions and self-reported deviance in the Cambridge Study on Delinquent Development (CSDD). The CSDD is a famous study based in the United Kingdom that has followed several generations of young people over the course of their lives and measured, among many other things, engagement in criminal behaviour over the life course. Several other early studies also found that behaviours reflecting low self-control such as smoking, gambling, being involved in accidents, and urinating in public, for example, were associated with criminal offending (e.g., Evans et al., 1997).

The second approach to measuring low self-control involves what are called attitudinal or cognitive indicators. These are typically measured using self-report surveys where respondents will be asked a series of questions designed to determine, generally, their degree of self-control. Grasmick and his colleagues (1993) argued that low self-control consists of six key dimensions: impulsivity, preference for simple tasks, risk-seeking potential, preference for physical (as opposed to mental) activities, self-centeredness, and a volatile temper. Therefore, they developed a survey designed to measure these dimensions of low self-control in a random sample of adults drawn from the general population of a large US city. They provided respondents with a series of statements and asked them to rate themselves on how applicable the statements were to them using a Likert scale with responses ranging from “strongly disagree”, “disagree somewhat”, “agree somewhat”, and “strongly agree.”

For example, to measure impulsivity, the researchers asked respondents to rate themselves accordingly to a series of statements such as: “I often act on the spur of the moment”. An example of a statement measuring preferences for simple tasks was: “When things get complicated, I tend to quit or withdraw”. A statement reflecting risk seeking included: “Sometimes I will take a risk just for the fun of it”. An example of a statement measuring preference for physical activities was: “If I had a choice, I would almost always rather do something physical than mental”. A statement measuring self-centredness included: “I try to look out for myself first, even if it means making things difficult for other people.” Finally, an example of a statement measuring a volatile temper was: “When I’m really angry, other people better stay away from me”. Grasmick et al. (1993) included four statements for each of these six dimensions for a total of 24 items. Now commonly referred to as The Grasmick et al. Low Self-Control Scale, the original scale and variations of it are among the most used measures of low self-control in criminological research.

Evidence on the link between low self-control and crime

One of the key hypotheses put forth by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) was that low self-control is predictive of a wide range of adverse outcomes in life, including antisocial and criminal behaviour. Therefore, over the years researchers have tested these hypotheses using measures of low self-control among samples of individuals including, for example, young people and adults in the community, university students, young people in school, and young people and adults with criminal backgrounds in various countries all over the world. In short, there is now an abundance of research on the link between low self-control and problematic outcomes in life including criminal behaviour. For instance, indicators of low self-control in childhood have been associated with problem behaviours in childhood, as well as adverse and problematic outcomes later in life such as smoking, alcohol and drug use, poor socioeconomic status, poor health, as well as criminal behaviour (e.g., Moffitt et al., 2011).

A large volume of studies has shown low self-control is associated with a wide variety of criminal behaviours including, but not limited to: violent offending (e.g., Piquero et al., 2005), sexual offending (Ha & Beauregard, 2016), intimate partner violence (e.g., Spivey & Nodeland, 2021), property crimes (e.g., Schreck, 1999), drug crimes (e.g., Conner et al., 2009), fraud (e.g., Holtfreter et al., 2010), as well as different forms of cybercrime (Donner et al., 2016; Holt et al., 2021; Whitten et al., 2024). Among samples of individuals with criminal backgrounds low self-control has been associated with reoffending and failing to comply with criminal justice dispositions (e.g., violations of probation or parole; DeLisi, 2001). Other studies have shown that low self-control is associated with crimes across different cultures (e.g., Vazsyoni et al., 2001), and low self-control has also been linked to an increased likelihood of experiencing various forms of criminal victimisation (Pratt et al., 2014).

Low self-control and cyber-criminal behaviour

Crime is relative to the times in which it occurs and evolves as times change. Since the advent of the internet, many forms of crime have evolved dramatically because of technological advances making them easier to commit, but at the same time, requiring a certain level of skill and expertise or technical know-how. For many years, a major blind spot in criminology has been the fact that people in general spend far less time interacting in the real world because of technologies such as social media. This also means that people are less likely to experience the types of crimes, such as physical assaults and robberies, that many criminological theories were originally developed to explain. Many crimes have become technologically enabled, meaning that the way many crimes are committed has changed because of technology. In the example of theft, instead of stealing money by physically breaking into someone’s home, it is possible to virtually break into their bank account. Other crimes did not exist before the internet. For example, the advent of the internet and associated technologies has led to new crimes such as cyber and ransomware attacks and hacking with malicious intent. As such, many criminologists have raised questions about whether or not traditional criminological theories are suited to explain such new and emerging forms of crime.

A recent longitudinal research project based in South Australia by researchers from the University of Adelaide, Griffith University, Flinders University, and the University of Michigan in the United States examined how adolescents engage with digital technology and different pathways into cyber-criminal behaviours. Beginning in 2018, this project followed a cohort of adolescents from when they were 13 years old until they turned 17 and checked in on them yearly, asking questions about their activities on the internet, including potentially illegal or antisocial types of activities (for yearly reports on key findings see: Cale et al., 2019; Sayer et al., 2020; Logos et al., 2021; Logos et al., 2022). The researchers also included a series of attitudinal measures of low self-control, and in doing so were able to examine whether low self-control was associated with different forms of online risk-taking and cyber-deviance behaviours. Overall, they found that young people who did not engage in any online risk-taking or deviant behaviours scored higher on self-control compared to those who engaged in a variety of risky or harmful online behaviours (Whitten et al., 2024). Some more specific findings that have emerged were that individuals who engaged in sexting (i.e., sending and or receiving sexts) were more likely to score lower on self-control compared to those who did not (Holt et al., 2021), low self-control was associated with engagement in online hate-activities (Turner et al., 2022), and that low self-control was associated with certain forms of hacking behaviours (Holt et al., 2020).

While the link between low self-control and criminal behaviour seems to be quite evident and seems to be relevant for at least certain types of cyber-criminal behaviour, there is still some debate in criminology around this issue. For some specific forms of crime, such as corporate crime (e.g., Simpson & Piquero, 2002) and terrorism (e.g., Ravenscroft, 2019), the evidence is not as straightforward. Importantly, the basis for, and measurement of, low self-control continues to be a particularly contentious point of debate. Therefore, in the final section of the chapter, some of the critiques of the theory and unresolved issues in the research are discussed.

THEORY CRITICISMS

As discussed earlier in the chapter, one of the early major criticisms of low self-control theory was that it was tautological. This critique primarily relates to behavioural measures of low self-control, particularly when they use illegal behaviours as an indicator of the trait. By doing so, the logic behind the critique is simply that past crimes (i.e., not low self-control) predict future criminal behaviour, and this is a well-known observation in criminology. As discussed earlier, two ways studies have avoided this critique is by using non-criminal reckless or impulsive behaviours to measure low self-control and predict specific criminal behaviours, or more commonly, by using attitudinal or cognitive measures of low self-control to predict the likelihood of criminal behaviour.

Another contentious point of debate in the theory is the basis for low self-control. Gottfredson and Hirschi argued that the underlying basis for the development of low self-control was ineffective parenting. However, others have argued this is a very simplistic premise for the development of something so complex (i.e., self-control) (e.g., Buker, 2011). Indeed, the theory does not recognise multiple other factors that have been shown to contribute to the development of self-control such as biological and neurological factors, social context, and education processes to name a few. For example, a common symptom of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a biological/genetic factor related to the development of self-control, is impulsivity (e.g., Pratt et al., 2002). Adverse neighbourhood conditions (e.g., presence of gangs, poverty, violence) have also been found to impact the development of self-control independent from parenting (e.g., Pratt et al., 2004) (see Buker 2011). Finally, education and training are also related to the development of self-control (e.g., Strayhorn, 2002) and this suggests it is possible to change/improve levels of self-control. Therefore, this also raises the next criticism of the theory which suggests that after established in childhood, the level of an individual’s self-control is stable throughout the life-course.

The notion put forth by Gottfredson and Hirschi that low self-control is established early in life and remains stable thereafter paints a discouraging picture for the future of these individuals. Furthermore, it runs somewhat contrary to the notion of rehabilitation practices for people who engage in antisocial and criminal behaviour, many of which have been shown to be effective. Many methods of rehabilitation currently used in the criminal justice system involve teaching individuals strategies to resist the impulses and temptations that got them into trouble in the first place. This process is also known as desistance.

Desistance from crime is the process of abstaining from engaging in criminal behaviour among people with histories of offending and recognises that individuals are agents of change. Indeed, there are many instances of individuals ‘turning their lives around’ to lead productive and prosocial lives after a criminal history. As such, it is not necessarily surprising that research examining the stability of low self-control over the life-course has produced mixed results along these lines (e.g., Turner & Piquero, 2002). For example, key life events have also been shown to impact self-control; Forrest and Hay (2011) showed that individuals who got married demonstrated increases in levels of self-control compared to individuals who did not get married. Therefore, it is also possible that other major life events, such as gaining meaningful employment and meaningful prosocial friendships and relationships, can also have an impact on the development of self-control at different points in life.

CONCLUSION

Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) General Theory of Crime, or, low self-control theory, remains one of the most prominent and empirically tested theories in criminology, even more than thirty years later. And while over these thirty years several shortcomings and limitations have been noted, this scrutiny has contributed to meaningful gains in our understanding of the basis for criminality, patterns in criminal behaviour, and even the ways to best prevent it. Recent years have seen low-self control theory applied to new and emerging forms of crime such as different cybercrimes, and researchers continue to evaluate the measurement of low self-control, its causes, and the nature of its relationship to crime. Undoubtedly, there will be much more research in the coming years in criminology around all these issues, further enhancing our understanding of criminal behaviour.

Check Your Knowledge

REFERENCES

Akers, R.L. (1991). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30, 201-211.

Barlow, H.D. (1991). Explaining crimes and analogous acts, or the unrestrained will grab at pleasure whenever they can. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82, 229-242.

Buker, H. (2011). Formation of self-control: Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime and beyond. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(3), 265-276.

Cale, J., Whitten, T., Brewer, R., de Vel-Palumbo, M., Goldsmith, A., & Holt, T. (2019). South Australian Digital Youth Survey Research Report: Year 1 Results. Adelaide: University of Adelaide. Available: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58ae271215d5db5ac22d4fdf/t/60b7388108cf5e0e997ee4cd/1622620293560/Wave 1 Report FINAL 2021.pdf

Conner, B.T., Stein, J.A., & Longshore, D. (2009). Examining self-control as a multidimensional predictor of crime and drug use in adolescents with criminal histories. Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research, 36, 137-149.

DeLisi, M. (2001). Designed to fail: Self-control and involvement in the criminal justice system. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 26, 131 – 148

Donner C. M. (2016). The gender gap and cybercrime: An examination of college students’ online offending. Victims & Offenders, 11(4), 556–577.

Evans, T. D., Cullen, F. T., Burton, V. S., Dunaway, R. G., & Benson, M. L. (1997). The social consequences of self-control: Testing the general theory of crime. Criminology, 35, 475–504.

Forrest, W., & Hay, C. (2011). Life-course transitions, self-control and desistance from crime. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 11, 487–513.

Gottfredson, M.R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursik, R. J., & 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.

Ha, O.K., & Beauregard, E. (2016). Sex offending and low self-control: An extension and test of the general theory of crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 47, 62-73.

Holt, K.M., Holt, T.J., Cale, J., Brewer, R., Goldsmith, A. (2021). Assessing the role of self-control and technology access on adolescent sexting and sext dissemination. Computers in Human Behavior, 125, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106952.

Holt, T. J., Cale, J., Brewer, R., & Goldsmith, A. (2021). Assessing the role of opportunity and low self-control in juvenile hacking. Crime & Delinquency, 67(5), 662-688.

Holtfreter, K., Reisig, M.D., Piquero, N.L., & Piquero, A.R. (2010). Low self-control and fraud: Offending, victimization, and their overlap. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 188–203.

Keane, C., Maxim, P. S., & Teevan, J. J. (1993). Drinking and driving, self-control, and gender: Testing the general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 30-46.

Logos, K., Ashwood, R., Brewer, R., Whitten, T., Cale, J., Holt, T., & Goldsmith, A. (2022). South Australian Digital Youth Survey Research Report: Year 4 Results. Adelaide: University of Adelaide. Available: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58ae271215d5db5ac22d4fdf/t/62df54c0bf576b4e38421d86/1658803396304/DYS Wave 4 Report FINAL.pdf

Logos, K., Rubinshtein, S., Brewer, R., Whitten, T., Cale, J., Holt, T., and Goldsmith, A. (2021). South Australian Digital Youth Survey Research Report: Year 3 Results. Adelaide: University of Adelaide. Available: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58ae271215d5db5ac22d4fdf/t/60b3a7e56158f206f1d48730/1622386735604/DYS Wave 3 Report.pdf

Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., Houts, R., et al. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 2693–2698.

Piquero, A. R., MacDonald, J., Dobrin, A., Daigle, L. E., & Cullen, F. T. (2005). Self-control, violent offending, and homicide victimization: Assessing the general theory of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21, 55–71.

Polakowski, M. (1994). Linking self- and social control with deviance: Illuminating the structure underlying a general theory of crime and its relation to deviant activity. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10, 41-78.

Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Blevins, K. R., Daigle, L., & Unnever, J. D. (2002). The relationship of ADHD to crime and delinquency. A meta-analysis. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 4, 344−360.

Pratt, T. C., Turner, M. G., & Piquero, A. R. (2004). Parental socialization and community context: A longitudinal analysis of the structural sources of low self-control. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41, 219–243.

Pratt, T. C., Turanovic, J. J., Fox, K. A., & Wright, K. A. (2014). Self-control and victimization: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 52, 87–116.

Ravenscroft, I. (2020). Terrorism, religion and self-control: An unexpected connection between conservative religious commitment and terrorist efficacy. Terrorism and Political Violence, 32(8), 1819-1834.

Sayer, M., Whitten, T., Brewer, R., Cale, J., Holt, T., & Goldsmith, A. (2020). South Australian Digital Youth Survey Research Report: Year 2 Results. Adelaide: University of Adelaide. Available: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58ae271215d5db5ac22d4fdf/t/60b739666330491e63e0da26/1622620521665/DYS Wave 2 FINAL 2021.pdf

Schreck, C. J. (1999). Criminal victimization and low self-control: An extension and test of a general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 16, 633–654.

Simpson, S. S., & Piquero, N. L. (2002). Low self-control, organizational theory, and corporate crime. Law and Society Review, 36, 509–548.

Spivey, E., & Nodeland, B. (2021). The victim-offender overlap in intimate partner violence: Considering the role of self-control. Deviant Behavior, 42(6), 733-746,

Strayhorn, J. M. (2002a). Self-control: Towards systematic training programs. Journal of American Academy of Children and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 17−27.

Turner, N., Holt, T.J., Brewer, R., Cale, J., & Goldsmith, A. (2022). Exploring the relationship between opportunity and self-control in youth exposure to and sharing of online hate content. Terrorism and Political Violence, 35(7), 1604-1619.

Turner, M. G., & Piquero, A. R. (2002). The stability of self-control. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 457–471.

Vazsonyi, A. T., Pickering, L. E., Junger, M., & Hessing, D. (2001). An empirical test of a general theory of crime: A four-nation comparative study of self-control and the prediction of deviance. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 91–131.

Whitten, T., Cale, J., Brewer, R., Logos, K., Holt, T. J., & Goldsmith, A. (2024). Exploring the role of self-control across distinct patterns of cyber-deviance in emerging adolescence. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X231220011