For deviant motivation to emerge, those predisposed toward it by an imbalanced control ratio must comprehend, or perceive, the possibility that deviance will alter their control ratios in an advantageous way. Since the variables that are likely to create a perception that deviance will advantageously alter control ratios, are mainly situational, they are called provocations. Although some degree of provocation is necessary to activate the causes of deviance, the extent and intensity of situational provocation also represent a contingency under which the causal mechanisms of the theory operate with greater or lesser efficiency. For deviance to occur, individuals must become fully conscious of their control ratios and of the possibilities for changing them through the use of deviant behavior. People have a general sense of their control ratios, but most of the time they operate with only secondary awareness of their deficits or surpluses. Everyday life is such a routine that most people rarely contemplate their control ratios. Yet everyone, from time to time, experiences circumstances that bring to mind the balance of control.
An opportunity to commit a particular kind of deviance is defined as a circumstance where that behavior is possible (Tittle 1995). Situational features that make deviance possible, vary with the type of deviance in question. An opportunity for exploiting others, for instance, necessarily involves access to a potential victim (or a victim-related object or thing of value) for that particular type of exploitation and a set of physical realities making the predatory act feasible. A robber must have access to another person with something of value to he predator and must not be diverted by physical barriers; in addition, for eventual triumph, the would-be robber must show superior physical strength, cunning, or weaponry. The requisites for burglary are access to a structure containing something of value to predator and the means to enter the building and remove the things of value. Rape demands access to another human, usually a female, along with an inequality of physical strength, cunning, or weaponry. So it is with opportunities for all kinds of deviance. No matter how favorable the motivation and constraint configuration, the actual likelihood of deviance occurring depends on there being an opportunity for it to happen. In addition, however, since opportunity varies with each different situation, we must also regard frequency and magnitude of opportunity as important contingencies under which the control balance process operates.
All these deviant acts are acts of deviance that require some sort of restraint from officials, parents, schools, police, or some other authoritative person or agency. Otherwise they would not be the factor for the control of balance needed for delinquency to be used in an attempt to show control. This is were variables come in to play, depending on the local of certain areas the constraint for such crimes may or may not be there. If parents are involved in a child’s upbringing the child may only commit deviant acts which would result in constraint from the parents to satisfy his or her control imbalance. Whereas, on the other hand in a family were the parent is not actively involved in the child’s upbringing, the child may search farther to feel the control balance they seek. Such as stealing a car, or some other act of deviance, resulting in constraint from an authoritative agency.
Control is defined broadly to incorporate the idea of total ability to limit the behavioral options of others and resist such limitations on one’s own behavioral options. Behavior is portrayed as an expression, though modulated and deflected by various circumstances, of an individual’s control ratio, or amount of control that can be exercised relative to the control that is experienced. The control ratio, a complicated mix of elements bearing on the interplay of control exercised or experienced, along with a fundamental desire for autonomy and some basic human needs, is described as intersecting in various ways to structure a persons predisposition for deviant motivation.
The theory of control balance explains deviance as a product of the tension between motivation and constraint when individuals try to rectify imbalances of control. Deviant behavior occurs when several variables come together in a favorable alliance. First, provocative features of a situation activate predisposition’s toward deviant motivation, generating a perception that deviance will enable the individual to alter a control imbalance; second, an opportunity to deviate exists; and third, the probability that deviance will activate controlling responses indicating a favorable condition. The chance of deviance, in general, are a product of the magnitude of motivation and opportunity, but the probability of particular kinds of deviance is the result of a complex interplay between motivation, opportunity, and constraint (Tittle 1995).
In summary, Matsueda’s theory of differential social control specifies a theory of delinquency based on unified framework of symbolic interactionist view of the self as a reflection of the appraisals of others. He (1) identifies a broader range of individual-level mechanisms of social control, (2) specifying group and organizational processes for controlling delinquency, (3) conceptualizing classical criminological theories as special cases of a general interactionist framework, and (4) testing the interactionist model empirically against specific hypotheses drawn from competing theories.
Tittle’s control balance theory, says deviance results from the convergence of four variables: (1) the predisposition toward deviant motivation; (2) the situational stimulation of that motivation, which is called provocation; (3) the opportunity to commit deviance, which is most important in explaining specific kinds of deviance rather that deviance in general, since the opportunity for some kind of deviance is almost always present; and (4) the likelihood that a particular deviant act will activate restraining responses by others, which is called constraint.
However, in either theory it is so hard to pinpoint the causes of actual deviance to any of a multitude of reasons let alone just one. There are so many uncontrolled variables to people, social levels of income and education, and overall beliefs on delinquent behavior. Although, there are similar aspects underlying both theories, this tends to revert back to the teaching of the parents, teachers, and other influential people, who are close to juveniles. What this leads me to believe is that the theories take for granted that everyone is brought up in an ideal family and social setting. This is simply just not true. There will always be juvenile delinquency, and in part because similarly, their will always be adult delinquency. Sending the improper signal to youth that it’s all right to do delinquent acts.
Bibliography
Reference List
Adler, Alfred. 1956. The Individual Psychology of Alfred
Adler. Edited and annotated by Heinz L Ansbacher and
Rowena R. Ansbacher. New York: Basic Books.
Burger, Jerry M. 1992. Desire for Control: Personality,
Social, and Clinical Perspectives. New York: Plenum
Press.
Briar, Scott and Irving Piliavin. 1965. “Delinquency,
Situational Inducements, and Commitment to
Conformaty.” Social Problems 13:35-45.
Charms, Richard De. 1968. Personal Causation: The Internal
Affective Determinants of Behavior. New York:
Academic Press.
Colvin, Mark and John Pauly. 1983. “A Critique of
Criminology: Toward an Integrated Structural-Marxist
Theory of Delinquency Production.” American Journal
of Sociology 89:513-51.
Deci, Edward L. 1975. Intrinsic Motivation. New York:
Plenum.
Dewey, John. 1922. Human Nature and Conduct. New York:
Modern Library.
Elliott, Delbert S., Suzanne Ageton, and Rachelle J.
Canter. 1979. “An Integrated Theoretical Perspective
on Delinquent Behavior.” Journal of Research in Crime
and Delinquency 16:3-27.
Elliott, Delbert S., David Huizinga, and Suzanne Ageton.
1985. Delinquency and Drug Use. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Empey, Lamar T., and Mark C. Stafford. 1991. American
Delinquency: Its Meaning and Construction. 3rd ed.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Gecas, Viktor. 1989. “the Social Psychology of Self
Efficacy.” Pp. 291-316 in Annual Review of Sociology,
edited by W. Richard Scott and Judith Blake. Palo
Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Gottfredson, Michael R. and Travis Hirschi. 1990. A
General Theory of Crime. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford
University.
Hagan, John. 1989. Structural Criminology. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.
Hagan, John and Alberto Palloni. 1988. “Crimes as Social
Events in the Lifecourse: Reconceiving a
Criminological Controversy.” Criminology 26:87-100.
Heimer, Karen and Ross L. Matsueda. 1994. “Role-Taking,
Role Commitment, and Delinquency: A Theory of
Differential Social Control.” American Sociological
Review 59:365-390.
Hewitt, John P. and Randall Stokes. 1975. “Disclaimers.”
American Sociological Review 40:1-11.
Langer, Ellen J. 1989. “Minding Matters: The Consequences
of Mindless-Mindfulness.” Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, 22:137-73.
Matsueda, Ross L. 1982. “Testing Control Theory and
Differential Association: A Causal Modeling Approach.”
American Sociological Review 47:489-504.
McCall, George J. and J. L. Simmons. 1978. Identities and
Interaction. New York: Free Press.
McClelland, David C. 1975. Power: The Inner Experience.
New York: Irvington.
Mead, George H. [1927] 1982. “1927 Class Lectures in
Social Psychology.” Pp. 27-105 in The Individual and
the Social Self: Unpublished Work of George Herbert
Mead, Edited by D. L. Miler. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago.
Mead, George H. 1934. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago.
Mead, George H. 1938. The Philosophy of the Act.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Miller, David L. 1973. George Herbert Mead: Self Language
and the World. Chicago IL: University of Chicago.
Miller, David L. 1982. “Introduction.” Pp. 1-26 in The
Individual and the Social Self: Unpublished Work of
George Herbert Mead, edited by D. L. Miller. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago.
Pearson, Frank S. and Neil Alan Weiner. 1985. “Toward an
Integration of Criminological Theories.” Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology 76:116-50.
Sampson, Robert J. and John H. Laub. 1990. “Crime and
Deviance Over the Life Course: The Salience of Adult
Social Bonds.” American Sociological Review 55:609-
27.
Short, James F., Jr., and Fred L. Strodtbeck. 1965. Group
Process and Gang Delinquency. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago.
Thornberry, Terrence. 1987. “Toward an Interactonal
Theory of Delinquency.” Criminology 25:863-91.
Tittle, Charles R. 1995. “Control Balance: Toward a
General Theory of Deviance.” Boulder, CO: Westview
Press, Inc.