Control theories focus on explaining why people do not commit crime, in contrast to approaches that seek to explain why people offend. They begin with the assumption that most individuals are naturally motivated to pursue their own interests, which can include deviant or criminal acts, if left unchecked. The central question for control theorists is therefore: What social mechanisms ensure conformity?
Control theories argue that social order depends on forms of social control—both direct and indirect—that discourage deviant behavior. These controls emerge from social institutions such as family, schools, peer groups, workplaces, and the legal system. Control can involve strong interpersonal ties, internalized moral values, and structured social expectations that guide individual behavior. The more effectively these mechanisms operate, the less likely individuals are to engage in criminal activity.
Key Approaches in This Category
Social Bonds Theory (Travis Hirschi) emphasizes the role of indirect, psychological control in preventing crime. Hirschi identified four key elements of social bonds—attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief—that tie individuals to society. The stronger these bonds, the greater the cost of rule-breaking in psychological and social terms, reducing the likelihood of deviance. Weak or broken bonds lower these costs and increase the risk of criminal behavior.
General Theory of Crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi) builds on these ideas by arguing that low self-control is the primary cause of criminal behavior. While Social BondsSocial bonds are ties to family, school, work, and community that inhibit individuals from engaging in criminal behavior. Theory incorporates multiple social variables, the General Theory of Crime focuses on the individual’s capacity for self-regulation, developed through early socialization. This internalized self-control acts as a psychological barrier against impulsive, deviant, or criminal acts throughout life.
Age-Graded Theory / Turning Points (Sampson & Laub) extends control theory by examining how social bonds and forms of social control change over the life course. Sampson and Laub argue that while early experiences shape criminal propensity, key life events such as marriage, stable employment, or military service can act as „turning points“ that strengthen social bonds and promote conformity. This life-course perspective highlights that social control is dynamic and evolves in response to personal and structural changes.
Control Balance Theory (Charles R. Tittle) refines control theory by examining not only the control imposed on individuals but also the control individuals exert over others. Tittle argues that deviance is most likely when there is a control imbalance—either too much control over others (leading to exploitation, predation) or too little control (leading to defiance, submission). This perspective expands control theory to include power relations, structural inequality, and the reciprocal nature of social control.
Context
Control theories emerged as a critical response to criminological traditions that focused mainly on the causes of crime—whether rooted in individual pathology, biological predispositions, or structural conditions. Instead of asking why people commit crimes, control theorists ask why people obey norms and laws. This shift redirects attention to the role of socialization, institutional attachments, self-regulation, and dynamic life-course processes in maintaining social order.
Taken together, control theories offer a nuanced understanding of crime prevention that emphasizes the importance of strong, stable social bonds, early and effective socialization, opportunities for life-course corrections, and balanced power dynamics. Rather than relying solely on punitive measures, these theories suggest that reducing crime requires reinforcing the informal and institutional structures that sustain conformity in everyday life.
