The General Theory of CrimeActs or omissions that violate criminal laws and are punishable by the state., developed by Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi in 1990, is one of the most influential modern control theories. It offers a parsimonious, universal explanation of criminal behavior by focusing on individual self-control. Rather than asking why people commit crimes, Gottfredson and Hirschi ask why they don’t—arguing that crime is the natural result when self-control is low and opportunity is present. Their theory has had a major impact on criminology, public policy, and debates about early childhood development and social prevention.
General Theory of Crime
Main Proponents: Michael R. Gottfredson, Travis Hirschi
First Publication: 1990
Country of Origin: United States
Core Idea: Crime results when individuals with low self-control encounter opportunities for offending. Self-control is shaped early in life through effective parenting and remains stable over the life course.
Foundation For: Control Theories, Right Realism, Crime Prevention Policy
Theory
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime aims to explain all forms of crime and deviant behavior through a single, unifying factor: self-control. The theory distinguishes two key concepts:
- Criminality – the stable individual propensity or tendency to offend.
- Crime – the specific act of breaking the law when opportunity arises.
They argue that most people encounter opportunities to commit crime frequently, so the real question is why some resist temptation while others do not. The answer lies in self-control, which they define as the ability to delay gratification, consider long-term consequences, and resist impulsive acts. Low self-control manifests as a preference for easy, immediate rewards and is linked to traits such as impulsivity, risk-taking, short-sightedness, and insensitivity to others.
According to the theory, self-control is established early in childhood through effective parenting. Parents who monitor behavior, recognize deviance, and appropriately correct it help their children develop self-control. Conversely, poor supervision, inconsistent discipline, or lack of parental investment result in low self-control. Once established, self-control is seen as relatively stable across the life course.
Illustration: The Marshmallow Test
That self-control in childhood is anything but automatic is famously shown by the so-called Marshmallow Test. In this classic experiment, children were offered a choice between one marshmallow immediately or two marshmallows if they could wait for a period of time. The test became an iconic (and often humorously cited) illustration of how difficult delaying gratification can be—even for adults watching the videos!
Gottfredson and Hirschi argue that the ability to delay gratification and control impulses develops early in life and becomes a stable personal trait. The Marshmallow Test offers a vivid, if simplified, window into what they consider the foundation of self-control and thus the likelihood of deviant behavior.
Gottfredson and Hirschi famously characterize crime as appealing to those with low self-control because it provides „money without work, sex without courtship, revenge without court delays“ (1990: 89). They also argue that low self-control explains not only crime but other problem behaviors such as substance abuse, accidents, and risky sexual behavior.
Example: Low Self-Control in Everyday LifeImagine two teenagers confronted with the opportunity to steal an expensive smartphone left unattended on a bench.
The first has developed strong self-control. She weighs the consequences, feels empathy for the owner, and resists the temptation. The second has low self-control: he acts impulsively, grabs the phone without thinking about legal consequences or the victim’s loss. This difference in self-control—not in opportunity—explains the variation in behavior.
Beyond crime, low self-control can also lead to risky driving, substance abuse, gambling problems, and academic failure due to procrastination and lack of discipline.
Implications for Criminal Policy
The General Theory of Crime, like other control theories, emphasizes the role of social institutions—especially families—in developing self-control. Gottfredson and Hirschi argue that crime prevention should focus on early childhood interventions, supporting parents in effective supervision, discipline, and socialization.
While Hirschi’s earlier Social Bonds Theory highlights ongoing social control throughout life, the General Theory of Crime stresses that self-control is primarily formed in the early years and remains stable. Accordingly, social policy should invest in family support, early education, and parenting programs to foster self-control and reduce crime risk over the life span.
Additionally, this theory has informed aspects of Right Realism in criminology. Though both emphasize traditional values and family structures, Right Realism often downplays social support in favor of deterrence and punitive measures. Control theories also underpin restorative justice models like Braithwaite’s Reintegrative Shaming, which use social bonds and shared moral values to prevent crime.
Right Realism: Policy Context
Right Realism (or „New Right CriminologyThe scientific study of crime, criminal behavior, prevention, and societal reactions to deviance within and beyond the criminal justice system.“) is an approach to crime policy that emerged in the 1970s and 1980s, particularly in the UK and US. It shares some theoretical roots with control theories—especially the idea that strong social bonds and self-control prevent crime. However, Right Realism emphasizes individual responsibility, deterrence, and punishment over social support or prevention.
Right Realists argue that crime results from rational choice, opportunity, and weak moral constraints. They advocate for:
- Harsh, certain punishments to deter offenders
- Zero tolerance policing and surveillance
- Limited social welfare, stressing personal responsibility
While Right Realism draws on elements of control theories (like the importance of family and socialization), it often rejects welfare-based prevention programs in favor of punitive, deterrence-focused strategies. Critics argue it overlooks structural inequalities and social causes of crime.
Critical Appraisal & Relevance
Empirical research provides mixed but generally supportive evidence for the connection between low self-control and criminal behavior. A meta-analysis by Pratt and Cullen (2000) found that self-control accounts for approximately 19% of the variance in criminal and deviant behaviors—a significant but not exhaustive explanation.
However, critics have challenged the theory’s claim to universality. Some argue that not all crimes result from impulsivity or low self-control—for instance, white-collar offenses often involve planning and high self-discipline. Others accuse the theory of tautology: defining low self-control as the inability to resist crime and then using crime to measure low self-control. Akers and Sellers (2004) suggest that the concept needs clearer, independent operationalization to avoid circular reasoning.
Despite these criticisms, the General Theory of Crime remains highly influential. It has reshaped discussions about early childhood intervention, family policy, and crime prevention by emphasizing self-regulation as a core protective factor against deviance.
Literature
Primary Literature
- Gottfredson, Michael R., and Travis Hirschi. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Secondary Literature
- Akers, R.L., and Sellers, C.S. (2004). Criminological Theory: Introduction, Evaluation, and Application. 4th Edition. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing.
- Pratt, Travis C.; Cullen, Francis T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s „General Theory of Crime“: A Meta-Analysis. Criminology, 38(3), 931-964.
- Hirschi, Travis; Gottfredson, Michael (1993). Commentary: Testing the General Theory of Crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(1), 47-54.
- Evans, T. David et al. (1997). The Social Consequences of Self-Control: Testing the General Theory of Crime. Criminology, 35(3), 475-504.