The Essential Role of Cross-national Research in Assessing Theories of Crime: Illustrations from Modern Control Theory

Abstract

Contemporary research from around the world provides a body of consistent findings, making it an indispensable tool for the evaluation of crime theory. To be valid, general theories of crime must now be able to accommodate the results of this cross-national research. Modern Control Theory is used as an illustration for conceptualizing this body of research. Research from three critical areas relevant to general theories of crime are used to illustrate the critical nature of this research: (1) results from self-report surveys of offending and victimization; (2) research on the lack of effectiveness of criminal justice sanctions in affecting rates of crime and interpersonal violence; and (3) prevention research that is focused both on early childhood and on the settings in which much crime occurs. Each is consistent with the expectations of Modern Control Theory (Gottfredson and Hirschi in Modern control theory and the limits of criminal justice, Oxford University Press, New York, 2019) and each demands the attention of any general theory purporting to explain crime and interpersonal violence.

Intimate Partner Violence, Femicide, and General Theories: Issues for Research and Policy From the View of Modern Control Theory

“…What, then, does MCT assume about IPV? The following several general inferences seem reasonable: (a) IPV is decidedly within the intended scope of the theory, since it fits the definition of "crime" used by MCT; (b) MCT assumes that it can "explain" major empirical facts about the distribution of crime, both over time and cross-sectionally-not, of course, providing the "sole causes," but providing substantively important and internally consistent explanations for each; (c) MCT clearly predicts that IPV is more likely when individuals are in association with others who have relatively low levels of self and social control and correspondingly less likely, the stronger the affectional bond among people and higher levels of self-control; (d) the theory predicts that, generally, victimization is more likely perpetrated by individuals who also have undertaken other, analogous problem behaviors, indicative of lower self-control, certainly including, but not restricted to, other prior offenses and prior violence; (e) MCT predicts that many of the events labeled "intimate partner violence" are not actually among intimates, as defined by attachment and other social bonds; (f) MCT assumes age effects for IPV are similar to other forms of interpersonal violence and risky behaviors-that is, to have peak rates in the late adolescence and early adulthood and to decline significantly over time with age, when implicit controls for age are not included in the definition of the offenses as is sometimes the case when researchers rely only on police or court data; (g) MCT assumes significant "situational" or "opportunity" effects, central to causation, can be identified for IPV (and potentially controlled); (h) MCT assumes that there will be both general causes (distal) and specific causes (proximate) for IPV (see, generally, Gottfredson & Hirschi, 2020;Gottfredson, 2021aGottfredson, , 2021b.…”

“…Accounting for declines in interpersonal violence in the same way as for declines in other problem behaviors seems more consistent with the data than are theories or expectations based on crimespecific models. In this sense, IPV and other crimes, delinquencies, and problem behaviors must have some similar causes, as MCT claims (Gottfredson, 2021a;Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990).…”

“…Given the relatively low incidence of IPH in national data, and the substantial reporting biases that exist for both survey and official data for IPV, it needs to be stressed that these trends may have greater reliability for longer periods of time than for the often very brief time periods involved with studies of interventions associated with COVID lockdowns. The focus in much of the "crime-drop" literature in the United States on variation in criminal justice sanctions is a good example of how shorter-term trends can be highly misleading (Gottfredson, 2021a).…”

“…MCT argues that aspects of situations or settings have direct effects in causing crime and violence (Gottfredson, 2021a(Gottfredson, , 2021bGottfredson & Hirschi, 2020). The presence of "capable guardians" (monitors, parents or teachers, others in the household, security personnel, etc.)…”

“…IPV, particularly IPH, presents issues for many putative general crime theories, as they struggle to explain violence among persons who have ongoing interpersonal relationships. This is certainly the case for both control theories (e.g., Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990Hirschi, 1969) and lifestyle perspectives (Gottfredson, 1981(Gottfredson, , 2021aHindelang et al, 1978), both of which see attachments to significant others as creating informal and personal controls (social and self-controls) that inhibit causing harm to others. Along with routine activity theory (RAT), these general theories include the idea of opportunity as a causal element (Gottfredson, 2018;Gottfredson & Hirschi, 2020).…”