‘Don’t Blow Your Cool’: Provocation, Violent Coping, and the Conditioning Effects of Self-Control

Abstract

Objectives General Strain Theory (Agnew in Criminology 30: 1992) has received broad empirical support, but little is known about moderators of the strain-delinquency relationship. This study tests whether self-control attenuates the relationship between a certain type of delinquency-violence-and its most important precursor, considered a type of strain: interpersonal provocation. This study compares the conditioning effects of risk-affinity and self-control/impulsivity on the provocation-violence link, since recent work suggests differentiating between both characteristics.Methods The provocation-violence link is examined (1) using a scenario design with randomly varied degrees of objective provocation and a measure of projected violence, and (2) with measures of self-reported past violence and subjective sensitivity to provocation. The analyses are based on a large sample of seventh-graders (n = 2635) from five cities in Western Germany, interviewed in 2013. Linear probability models regressing violence measures on personal traits, provocation measures, and their interactions are estimated.Results Both self-control and risk-affinity moderate the relationship between subjective sensitivity to provocation and past violent behavior. Students with high self-control are able to control their anger and do not turn violent, even when they feel provoked easily. However, only risk-affinity significantly amplifies the effect of objective provocation on prospective violence when simultaneously controlling for the conditioning effect of selfcontrol. ConclusionsFindings underscore that both self-control and risk-aversion are important coping resources. This study highlights the importance of using internally consistent and mechanism-congruent measures in the study of illicit coping processes and conditioning factors and discourages from using composite, potentially multidimensional measures.

Peers, Perceptions, and E-Cigarettes: A Social Learning Approach to Explaining E-Cigarette Use Among Youth

“…None of the interaction terms are significant across all three tables, demonstrating that there is no evidence that mediation processes are moderated by the type of e-cigarette user. Due to concerns with exclusively relying on interactions to detect moderation with nonlinear models (Ai & Norton, 2003;Norton et al, 2004;Schulz, 2016), supplemental analyses (available upon request 2 ) were conducted by running separate models for each type of e-cigarette user. Results were consistent across all types of e-cigarette users, with peer e-cigarette use being significantly related to e-cigarette use, and perception of risk, although also a significant predictor of e-cigarette use across models, did not mediate peer e-cigarette use.…”

Are Impulsive Adolescents Differentially Vulnerable to Normative or Situational Peer Influences? A Partial Replication Study

“…People differ in how they perceive and evaluate the same situation. Confronted with a specific criminogenic temptation or opportunity, some are more concerned with pleasures of immediate gratification (Mischel, Shoda, & Rodriguez, 1989), some individuals have more difficulties in restraining impulses or have a higher risk affinity (Schulz, 2016), some poorly assess the consequences of their choices, and some have a shorter time horizon than others (Frederick, Loewenstein, & O’Dfonoghue, 2002). Indeed, the idea that individuals differ in their perception and interpretation of environmental conditions, their emotional reaction to them and their behavioral inclinations toward offending, is not new.…”

A Theory of Crime Resistance and Susceptibility*

“…Likewise, it is at the core of several related traits, including “difficult temperament,” negative emotionality, and neuroticism (Agnew et al., ; Jones, Miller, and Lynam, ; Vollrath, ). The strain research in criminology and the larger stress research also have confirmed that some individuals are more likely than others to have negative emotional reactions to stressors (Agnew, ; Bernard, ; Schulz, ; Smith and Kirby, ). These negative emotional reactions may be driven by the view that the stressors are very bad, unjust, and uncontrollable (Agnew, ; Ganem, ; Smith and Kirby, ).…”

“…These negative emotional reactions may be driven by the view that the stressors are very bad, unjust, and uncontrollable (Agnew, ; Ganem, ; Smith and Kirby, ). But the emotional reaction to stressors is often immediate and involves little or no conscious deliberation (Benson and Sams, ; Finan, Zautra, and Wershba, ; Schulz, ; Van Gelder, ). In fact, the emotional reaction frequently drives cognitions.…”

“…Furthermore, these goals have often been reported in qualitative studies of street offenders (e.g., Shover, ; Wright and Decker, ). (It should be noted that sensation seeking is a component of low self‐control as defined by Gottfredson and Hirschi [], but data indicate that a distinction should be made between the desire for rewards, including thrills and excitement, and the ability to restrain oneself from acting on this desire [Burt, Sweeten, and Simons, ; Duckworth and Kern, ; Schulz, ; Steinberg, ].)…”