Almost every bank in the country has security cameras that capture every

transaction throughout the business day. These cameras serve to protect the
interests of the bank, as well as the customer. Bank tellers deal with hundreds of
thousands of dollars on a daily basis. Usually, that money finds its way to the
vault at the end of the day. But sometimes, the money ends up in the pocket of the
teller.

What is it that makes the teller put the money in his pocket? At the same time,
what made the rest of the bank tellers leave the money alone? Charles Tittle, a
professor at North Carolina State University, offers an explanation called the
control balance theory. Introduced in 1995 in his book Control Balance, Tittle's
theory is based around control, and discusses how much a person's surroundings
control their behavior, as well as how a person is able to overcome these controls
and have control over others.

In the example of the bank teller who pocketed some money, this teller exercised
control over his surroundings. However, the teller managed to pocket the money, he
escaped the controls of the video surveillance and those who might be watching him.
The remainder of the tellers who didn't steal were controlled by their
surroundings.

Control balance theory is predicated on the idea of control, which is (1) the
degree to which others and a person’s surroundings can limit an individual’s
behavioral options and (2) the extent to which an individual can escape from these
controls and exercise such controls over others.

The ratio of controls exercised to controls experienced constitutes the control

ratio, which is the central cause of deviance in the theory. The key assertion of
control balance theory is that control ratio imbalances will be associated with
deviance because they will lead to an imbalance between motivation toward deviance
and constraints on deviance behavior. Control imbalances can be of two types: (1)
control deficits, which occur when the control that individuals can exercise is
exceeded by the amount of control to which they are subject, and (2) control
surpluses, which indicate that the controls that individuals can exercise surpass
the controls they experience. Importantly, in this initial statement of the theory,
control deficits are hypothesized to impact only “repressive” types of deviance
(similar to street crime), whereas control surpluses should affect only
“autonomous” deviance (analogous to white-collar crime and elite deviance). As
control ratios approach a balanced point, in which controls exercised and controls
experienced are equal, deviance becomes less likely, because deviant motivation and
constraints on deviance will be balanced.

Deviance, or bad behavior, occurs in two situations according to control balance

theory. One of these situations is when a person is more controlled than
controlling. In the example of the bank teller, many controls were in place to keep
crime from occurring. However, the teller in the example chose to escape these
controls and committed the crime of theft. It's human nature to want to be in
control. Not everyone who is in a controlled environment will commit a crime, but
for some it's a way to be more autonomous, or free from control.

Another situation where deviance can occur is when a person is more controlling
than controlled. In this situation, the person has more control than the securities
around her. Take for instance a stock trader who works alone in an office. The
trader is in a position of trust and there are no cameras or other monitoring
systems in place. Clients who give her their money trust that she will invest it
wisely and appropriately. This person has more control than the bank teller who is
under a watchful eye. The trader could easily put money into an account that she
owns instead of her clients.
According to the Control Balance Theory, both the probability of deviant behavior
occurring and the characteristic form of deviation are determined by the
relationship between the control that a person is exposed to and the control that
he exercises himself.

The Control Balance Theory has its starting point in the observation that other
control theories only consider forms of control that affect an individual from the
outside. Charles Tittle’s Control Balance Theory, on the other hand, emphasizes
that every human being is not only passively exposed to control, but also actively
exercises control over others. The relationship between actively exercised and
self-experienced control is important here. Tittle describes this relationship as a
‘control ratio’. This “control ratio” can be either balanced or unbalanced. For
Tittle, the type of imbalance affects the specific expression of the deviance it
causes. It distinguishes between three states:

If the experienced and the exercised control are in balance, “Control Balance”
exists. In this state, deviant behavior is unlikely.
If someone exercises more control than he or she experiences, there is a control
surplus. In this state, individuals tend to engage in autonomous forms of crime.
This refers to acts of a more indirect nature. There are few direct confrontations
with the victim.
If an individual experiences more control than he or she exercises, there is a
control deficit. Repressive forms of deviance occur. These are characterized by
direct confrontations with the victim.
Tittle assumes that every person strives for the greatest possible degree of
autonomy – in other words, wishes to influence the relationship of control in his
favour. An imbalance in the control ratio therefore creates a predisposition to
deviant behaviour. If there is a control deficit, an attempt is made to compensate
this by deviant behaviour. If, on the other hand, there is a control surplus, there
is the temptation to extend it even further.

However, a predisposition to deviant behaviour alone is not sufficient for this

behaviour to occur.

Two prerequisites must be fulfilled in order for the predisposition to become a

motivation for deviance:

An individual must perceive the control deficit or control surplus and recognize
that his own control ratio can be influenced by a certain deviant behavior. The
deviant behaviour must therefore be regarded as suitable to reduce the deficit or
to further increase the surplus.
The individual must experience a negative emotion, especially humiliation. This is
perceived as provocation, which in turn justifies deviance.
Deviant behaviour occurs when a motivated individual has an opportunity to act and
constraints can be overcome. Such inhibitions can be moral convictions, self-
control or fear of punishment.

The General Theory of Crime explains, like other control theories, the absence and
not the emergence of crime. This leads them back to self-control. If an individual
has little self-control, and has the opportunity to commit crime, criminal behavior
becomes more likely. Since the opportunities for crime are widespread, lack of
self-control is to be seen as the main cause of crime. (Gottferdson and Hirschi)

A General Theory of Crime, Gottfredson and Hirschi assert that the propensity to
commit crime is tied directly to a person’s level of self-control. According to
Gottfredson and Hirschi, individuals with low self-control are unable to restrain
themselves from the temptations of immediate satisfaction (Cullen & Agnew, 2006).

They conclude that the amount of self-control someone exhibits is a product of

early childhood rearing and that low self-esteem is the primary cause of crime
(Cullen & Agnew, 2006). Parents who monitor the behavior of their children,
supervise them closely, recognize unacceptable behavior, and administer punishment
are, therefore, more likely to have children who have the self-control necessary to
resist the desire to commit crime.

An alternative study by Brenda Blackwell and Alex Piquero attempted to explain the
relationship between gender and criminality (2005). According to their research,
males are more likely to exemplify low self-control than females. The authors
conclude that this is due differences in the treatment of boys and girls during
early childhood development. Blackwell and Piquero (2005) assert that boys are
typically shown less affection and comforted less than girls because of the
cultural aspects of the masculine gender role.

The theory hypothesizes that low self-control is the cause of the propensity toward
criminal behavior, yet Gottfredson and Hirschi do not define self-control
separately from this propensity. They use the terms “low self-control” and “high
self-control” as labels for this differential propensity to commit crime (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006). They do not identify operational measures of low self-control as
separate from the tendency to commit crime. Thus, the propensity toward crime and
low self-control appear to be one and the same.

According to their theory, official actions taken to deter or control crime in

adulthood are no likely to have much affect (Cullen & Agnew, 2006). Self-control is
the result of early socialization in the family and, therefore, only preventative
policies that take effect early in life and have a positive impact retain a chance
of reducing crime and delinquency

The theory implies that once a person engages in deviant behavior, whether one time
or habitually, he or she cannot be deterred from it. This concept suggests the
irrational belief that anyone who commits a crime is destined to always commit
crime. The self-control theory directly contradicts the rehabilitation aspect of
correctional psychology. Compliant with the self-control theory, individuals who
have committed a crime cannot be rehabilitated through treatments such as
counseling or behavior modification (Cullen & Agnew, 2006).

General Theory of Crime (1990), which defined crime as “acts of force or fraud
undertaken in pursuit of self-interest.” Arguing that all crime can be explained as
a combination of criminal opportunity and low self-control, Gottfredson and Hirschi
hypothesized that a child’s level of self-control, which is heavily influenced by
child-rearing practices, stabilizes by the time he reaches the age of eight. Thus,
they identified parenting as the most decisive factor in determining the likelihood
that a person will commit crimes.

Differential coercion theory is a theory in criminology that explains the

relationship between coercion and the likelihood of committing a crime. Developed
by sociology professor Mark Colvin in the year 2000, the theory is based on the
idea that juveniles who are exposed to negative experiences in their homes and
social lives are more likely to lack in certain social and psychological areas.
This increases their chances of committing a crime in the future.

Differential, in this context, means varying in consistency of exposure. Some

juveniles might experience coercion only a few times in their daily life. It might
only come from one source, or it might not be that serious. For others, it might be
something they encounter daily and come from multiple aspects of their environment.

For example, say John and Thomas go to the same school. John lives in a supportive
home where he's held accountable for his behaviors by his parents and encouraged to
make positive choices. Because of this, he does fairly well in school and has no
major issues. He lives in a relatively safe neighborhood where he rarely encounters
crime or violence.

Thomas lives in a home where he regularly witnesses violent interactions between

his parents and it often turns towards him. His family struggles to put food on the
table or meet other basic needs. He lives in a neighborhood that is deeply rooted
in gang culture and he is often exposed to drugs and witnesses violence near his
home. These things cause Thomas a great amount of stress and he has a hard time
focusing in school.

In 1993, American psychologist Terrie Moffitt described a dual taxonomy of

offending behavior in an attempt to explain the developmental processes that lead
to the distinctive shape of the age crime curve. Moffitt's original statement of
the theory is one of the more important articles in criminology with 2,792
citations. She proposed that there are two main types of antisocial offenders in
society: The adolescence-limited offenders, who exhibit antisocial behavior only
during adolescence, and the life-course-persistent offenders, who begin to behave
antisocially early in childhood and continue this behavior into adulthood. This
theory is used with respect to antisocial behavior instead of crime due to the
differing definitions of 'crime' among cultures. Due to similar characteristics and
trajectories, this theory can be applied to both females and males.

Containement Theory of Walter Reckless. In the 1960s he generalized this finding

into a containment theory, which argued that there are inner and outer forces of
containment that restrain a person from committing a crime: the inner forces stem
from moral and religious beliefs as well as from a personal sense of right and
wrong; the outer forces come from family members, teachers, or others who influence
the individual to some degree. The effectiveness of containment forces can be
influenced by external factors such as effective supervision and internal factors
such as a good self-concept.