On Theory Integration Essay

On Control hypothesis in that location atomic number 18 two founding tenets of assure theory (Gottfredson and Hirschi,1990) all appearance, criminal or not, arises from the hedonic end to seek pleasure and avoid pain and the appearance may be criminal or criminally analogous when the operator is insufficiently restrained from resorting to force or fraud in the search of interest. Control in this circumstance refers to restraining factors in the individual, in the form of internalized norms comparable to(predicate) to the superego and ego, and the controlling influence and authority of genial institutions, such as the family, school, or neighborhood.Reckless (1961), for example, sees conformity in terms of inside(a) containment through a favorable self- opinion, goal druthers, frustration tolerance, and loading to norms, and come to the foreer containment which comes from the availability of pregnant roles and social acceptation. Violation of these restraints invol ves personal costs in the form of punishment, social rejection, or loss of future opportunities. Whether a person yields to temptation accordingly depends on the balance surrounded by anticipated rewards and costs (Piliavin, Hardyck and Vadum, 1968). One of the around significant with regards to this theory is the social control theory of Hirschi (1969, 1978, 1986), which suggests that conformity is hooklike on the interrelation between the person and the environment (a stake in conformity), and that deviance results when the interrelation between the two is lost.The correlated elements of the puzzle ar (1) attachment to differents in the form of conscience, internalized norms, and caring what early(a)s think (2) commitment to conventional goals (3) involvement in conventional pursuits incompatible with delinquent activities and (4) popular opinion in the moral validity of conventional values. No special motivation to persuade is taked, since everyone is exposed to temp tation, and the theory is have-to doe with with criminality in global rather than the commission of specific crimes. The theory is silent abtaboo how bonds go bad or break d have got, or how vulnerable bonds produce deviant demeanour other than by leaving the individual free to deviate (Conger, 1976 Box, 1981). some(prenominal) theorists maintain that weakness of the social bond can only partly account for deviant behavior, and that individual variation in the motivation to deviate must(prenominal) be taken into account. This is the position taken by Elliott et al. (1985), who propose an integration of strain, control, and social learning theories. However, Hirschi and Gottfredson have recently reaffirmed the view that no special motivation is required to explain crime, which is a natural result of unrestrained human tendencies to seek pleasure and avoid pain (Hirschi and Gottfredson, 1988 Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). They underline the compatibility of classical choice theories of criminal acts and the positivist concept of criminality as the tendency to commit crimes, but see the latter as a function of self control.Criminal acts are held to be the immediate enjoyment of common human desires, and require little planning, effort, or skill. They depend on opportunities and temptations, and are closely related to other socially disapproved acts, such as drinking, smoking, drug-taking, illicit sex, and even accidents, all of which become more likely when spate deprivation self control.Individuals who possess such generalized attributes have the tendency to be impulsive, insensible, physical (as opposed to mental), daredevil, thoughtless, and nonverbal. Low self control is favored to criminality because of the positivist implications in the latter of positive causes, and hence differences between crimes in motives. Since the only common element in crimes and analogous acts is deficiency of self control, it is unnecessary to distinguish types of crime or criminal.On Containment TheorySince this is a study which involves both inner containment and outer containment, we are concerned with how these elements are formed at heart the individual and the relation of the two elements to individually other. The central concepts of containment theory are outer containment, inner containment, physiological and psychological pushes and the social stratosphere or pressures and pulls. Outer or external containment Reckless, 1967470 is the ability of the party, the state, the tribe, the village, the family, and other nuclear groups to hold the individual within the bounds of accepted norms and aspects.It assumes that society and particular nuclear groups contain, steer, shield, divert, support, reinforce, and limit its members. This may include norms and expectations, customs, rules and laws. The theory, in that respectfore, assumes that individuals are presented with a set of norms for different age groups, for males and females and for divers(a) perspectivees. From these expectations Reckless, 1967470, one is presented with the correct pretence of behavior. When discussing outer containment, it is alike necessary to assume that deviant, illegal and immoral behavior exists in most societies and that a society usually produces effective conformers.There are three major aspects Reckless, 1967470-471J of external containment for modern, mobile societies. Groups result various rules of behavior and expect conformity to these rules. If a group can successfully get its members to internalize or conform to these rules, then external containment has occurred violations are held at a tolerable take aim. Secondly, in addition to presenting the individual with rules and limitations, groups must also provide one with meaningful roles and activities. These roles may ramble on from the family to a compeer group or an educational situation. Roles limit behavior and when there are no roles or few roles present, then t he individual is go forth on his own to establish limits on behavior.A third helping of external containment Reckless, 1967471 is that of group reinforcement. This includes a maven of belonging and identity, supportive relationships and acceptance by the group. This component comes primarily from nuclear groups the family or a peer group. This is also called incorporation or integration of the individual. If one has a sense of belonging, acceptance and support, then one is more likely to stay within the abandoned norms of society.Inner containment Reckless, 1967475J is the ability of the person to follow expected norms and, therefore, to broadcast himself. It involves the individual personalitys need to live up to expectation of others. It may inc1ude the aspect of shaming. For example, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Inner containment may also include those phenomena which may threaten the self image or introduce one feel guilty. It is ones stake in conformity, or ones m oral nature. It is manifested on a continuum from strong to weak self control.Reckless 1967475 states that the self increases in significance as a controlling agent as a society becomes more diverse, alienate and impersonal, and as the individual spends an increasing amount of time away from foundation base. Increased impersonalization means that the self must exert greater directive control. There are certain components of the self which strengthen it to resist difference from societal norms. These components make it possible for the individual to contain himself in a modern, mobile environment. They are a favorable self concept, goal orientation or aspiration level, level of frustration tolerance and retention of norms.The graduation exercise component of self, according to Reckless 1967475, is the favorable self perception. The individual who perceives his own responsibility will act responsible. A favorable self concept aids in following approved standards of behavior. The person who perceives himself as honest, tried and true and helpful will most likely act that way.Goal focal point Reckless, 1967476 is the second component of self which gives high directional capability. Capability for inner direction is the result of focusing on such approved goals as education and job improvement. This is especially true when goals involve long range planning and effort. This insures against deviance because of the necessity to conform to socially approved methods to receive the goals. Related to goal orientation is ones aspiration level which should consist of realistically obtainable goals.The third self factor Reckless, 1967476J is that of frustration tolerance. This tolerance should be able to withstand pressures, failure and disappointments. Containment theory assumes that a high frustration tolerance will insulate the individual against universe diverted from his course. It enables a person to be more in control of the situation.The last component Reckle ss, 1967476J of inner containment is retention of norms. This retention is the result of adherence, acceptance, and commitment, credit with, legitimation of laws, codes, values, customs and institutions. It is, therefore, assumed that self containment is a personal internalisation of models of behavior. Ordinary strength and ordinary weakness in self containment represents a normal range of self development. An abnormal manifestation would be native rigidity of character. This may be the result of faulty development.Integrating Theories The disparity of control theory and containment theory is based on the maintenance of the status quo or the upholding of universal social standards. In the former theory, the curtailment of hedonistic tendencies of an individual is being elucidated to ensure that deviant behaviors will not manifest. spell in the latter theory, the focal point is to provide ways on how deviant behaviors will be contained. Hence, theory A (Control Theory) provides the explanation of wherefore a certain individual behave in a given manner, and theory B (Containment Theory) outlines different means in curbing out such given manner. If we put this context, say for example in the nerve of gang delinquencies, control theory will point out that a gang member shows juvenile behavior due to peer pressure, poverty, lack of parental guidance, and etc. The concern of containment theory on this crime is to provide realizable measurements for the person such as rehabilitation, education, guidance or precisely through guiding the person on understanding the concept of proper self image.Summary In toto, both theories discuss the delinquent and deviant tendencies of an individual depending on how the environment influences him/her, and how great is the impact of such environment to the individual. Applying both theories in crime, control theory is best embodied by the natural tendencies of a person since the behavioral patterns of the criminals is subsu me in the context of Freudian psychology such as the id, ego and superego. On the other hand, containment theory is best exemplified in the quantifiable means of curbing out the innate tendencies of the person to in going against the standard, or simply by being deviant of the status quo. Both control and containment theories have the alike concept of inner containment but differ in external terms. file name extension(Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990 Rebellon & Waldman, 2003)Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime Stanford University PressRebellon, C., & Waldman, I. (2003). Deconstructing Force and dodge An Empirical Assessment of the Generality of Crime Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19(3), pp. 303-331.