Testing the Core Empirical Implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi's General Theory of Crime

TLDR

Gottfredson and Hirschi argue that low self‑control, combined with criminal opportunity, is the primary driver of crime. The study tests Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory using their original definitions and proposes modifications to the model. Factor analysis confirms low self‑control as a unidimensional trait, and an interaction between self‑control and opportunity predicts fraud and force, yet opportunity also shows a significant main effect and a large portion of crime variance remains unexplained.

Abstract

In A General Theory of Crime, Gottfredson and Hirschi propose that low self-control, in interaction with criminal opportunity, is the major cause of crime. The research reported in this article attempts to test this argument while closely following the nominal definitions presented by Gottfredson and Hirschi. A factor analysis of items designed to measure low self-control is consistent with their contention that the trait is unidimensional. Further, the proposed interaction effect is found for self-reported acts of both fraud and force (their definition of crime). Inconsistent with the theory are (a) the finding that criminal opportunity has a significant main effect, beyond its interaction with low self-control, on self-reported crime and (b) the substantial proportion of variance in crime left unexplained by the theoretical variables. Suggestions are offered for modifying and expanding the theory.