The Interplay of Self-Control and Peer

Influence in Filipino Delinquency

1*
Dan Jerome Barrera, 2 Dante Capistrano, 3 Amabelle T. Feliciano, 4 Anna Marie C. Alaban,
5
Haiasi Mariam Agusin, 6 Nathaniel G. Locsin, 7 Jiemark G. Villabeto

ABSTRACT

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argued that self-control is the individual level cause
of crime and delinquency and that it will render the relationship between differential
association and delinquency spurious. Contrary to these claims, previous research
reveals that self-control cannot diminish the effects of differential association on
delinquency as both have comparable effects and are even found complementary.
These issues, however, are still unexamined in the Philippines. Thus, this study
explores the relationships of self-control, differential association, and delinquency in a
sample of Filipino college students in Dumaguete City, Philippines. Results reveal that
self-control and differential association have direct effects on delinquency, but self-
control does not render differential association-delinquency relationship spurious. In
fact, differential association mediates the effects of self-control on delinquency. These
results suggest that self-control and differential association are complementary, thus
indicating that integration of these concepts might be a better way of modeling Filipino
delinquency.

Keywords: Self-control, differential association, delinquency, college students,

Dumaguete City, Philippines.

INTRODUCTION spurious as both are deemed to be the results of

Do individuals who have locked with
delinquents become deviants, or do they lock
with delinquents because they are already
deviants themselves? Two of the theories that have
competing answers to these questions are social
learning (Akers, 2009) and self-control theories of
delinquency (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Social
learning theory posits that criminal behavior is
learned through peer networks. On the other
hand, self-control theory argues that self-control
is the cause of both crime and gravitation to
delinquent peers. Thus, the relationship between
having delinquent peers and delinquency is likely
low self-control (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990).
These and other tangential issues are
important in criminology that they have been the
subject of debate between social learning and
self-control theory camps (Akers, 1996; Akers,
2008; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Hirschi, 1996;
Hirschi & Gottfredson, 2008). Aside from this,
these propositions have been empirically tested by
researchers. Some writers (e.g. Evans et al., 1997)
found support for the propositions of self-control
theory that individuals who have low self-control
and are already delinquents tend to self-select
delinquent peers, while some did not (e.g. Huang
& Akers, 2003; Young, 2011). However, some

1,2,3,4,5,6,7
College of Criminal Justice Education, Negros Oriental State University Prism, Volume 20 Issue 2, (July - Dec. 2015)
Main Campus II, Brgy. Bajumpandan, Dumaguete City, 6200, Philippines
*danjerome.barrera@norsu.edu.ph
 70
researchers found that both theories are correct
– persons with low self-control tend to lock with
those who have low self-control and delinquent,
but self-control could not account for all of the
criminogenic effects of delinquent peers on
delinquency (Chapple, 2005; McGloin&Shermer,
2009; Wright, Caspi, Mofitt & Silva, 1999; Wright,
Caspi& Mofitt, 2001).
However, these studies were conducted
in Western countries, mostly in the US. The
issue is still unexamined in the Philippines. The
Philippines provides a unique context in testing
the competing propositions of the two theories.
Unlike Westerners, most Filipinos are known to
manifest self-control, resilience (katatagang-loob),
non-violence (kawalang-karahasan), prudence
(kahinahunan), calmness (kakalmahan) than
anger and violence (Tiangco, 2005). Self-control
play a signiicant role in Filipinos’ personal and
social life. Thus, the interplay of self-control and
peer inluence might be different in the Philippine
setting.
In illing this gap, the current study examines
the relationship of self-control, differential
association, and delinquency among Filipino
college students in Dumaguete City, Philippines.
In particular, we speculate that the effect of self-
control on differential association-delinquency
relationship can be modeled in three ways. First,
the relationship between differential association
and delinquency is spurious since both are
caused by low self-control. In effect, when self-
control is entered simultaneously with differential
association into the model, the effect of the latter
will disappear. Second, the relationship between
self-control and delinquency is mediated by peer
deviance. That is, the effect of self-control on
delinquency is eliminated or attenuated once the
differential association is entered into the model.
Finally, the effect of self-control on delinquency
is moderated by differential association. Persons
with low self-control tend to commit more crimes
The Interplay 0f Self-Control
when they are with delinquent peers. The rest
of the paper discusses the literature on social
learning and self-control theories of delinquency
and the results of the current study.
Social learning theory of delinquency
Social learning theory is an elaboration
of Sutherland’s (1947) differential association
theory, which argues that criminal behavior is
learned. Akers (2009) elaborated the theory by
adding concepts on operant conditioning which
posits that behavior is a function of differential
reinforcements – rewards and punishments.
However, the concept of differential association
together with deinition and imitation remains
the core of the theory. Akers (2009) summarizes
his theory into the following:
The probability that persons will engage in
criminal and deviant behavior is increased
and the probability of their conforming to the
norm in decreased when they differentially
associate with others who commit criminal
behavior and espouse deinitions favorable
to it, are relatively more exposed in-person
or symbolically to salient criminal/deviant
models, deine it as desirable or justiied in a
situation discriminative for the behavior, and
have received in the past and anticipate in the
current or future situation relatively greater
reward than punishment for the behavior. (p.
50)
Thus, the differential association is
the context in which other criminogenic
learning processes – imitations, deinition,
and reinforcement – occur. It pertains to the
“individual’s direct interaction with others who
engage in certain kinds of behavior (criminal/
deviant or conforming) and exposes the individual
to the norms, values, and attitudes supportive of
these behaviors” (Akers & Jennings, 2009:325).
Barrera, Capistrano, Feliciano, Alaban, Agusin, Locsin, and Villabeto
It can occur with “intimate personal groups” or
primary groups and secondary groups (Akers,
2009:60). Primary groups include family and
friends while secondary groups and reference
groups include neighbors, schools, churches, and
the media. The family is acknowledged as most
inluential during childhood; however, during
adolescence and adulthood, peers and secondary
or reference groups become more important
in inluencing individuals in conforming and
nonconforming behavior.
These groups can inluence an individual
to commit delinquent acts through “what they
do” and “what they think” – the behavioral/
interactional and normative dimensions of
differential association (Akers, 2009; Warr&
Stafford, 1991). Regarding the behavioral
dimension, individuals are provided with models
of which delinquents acts may be modeled. These
models also encourage delinquent behaviors
through punishments and rewards toward
conforming and nonconforming behavior. As to
the normative dimension, individuals are exposed
to models with delinquent deinitions or views,
thereby further encouraging them to commit
delinquent acts and altering their normative
deinitions. In short, differential association
facilitates the mechanisms through which an
individual learn and commit crimes.
Empirically, the theory has been tested over
a hundred of times and generated overwhelming
support from most studies (Akers & Jensen, 2006;
Pratt et al., 2010). Pratt et al. (2010) analyzed
the results of 133 studies that tested the theory
on a total of 118,403 individuals from 1973 to
2003 and found considerable support for the
theory. However, they found that its four central
concepts did not perform equally in predicting
crime/delinquency. In general, differential
association and deinitions outperform imitation
and differential reinforcement. The differential
association was signiicant in 90% of the statistical
71
models examined while imitation was signiicant
in 73% of the models. Moreover, these two
predictors had the largest effects on delinquency
among the four concepts. In sum, Pratt et al. (2010)
noted that the strong effect size of differential
association and deinitions to delinquency/crimes
was stronger than that of deterrence (Pratt et
al., 2006) but comparable to that of self-control,
thereby conirming the results of a previous meta-
analysis of the effect of self-control on crime and
delinquency (see Pratt & Cullen, 2000).
Self-control theory’s self-selection thesis
Self-control is perhaps one of the most
popular and most cited theories in criminology
(Google citations as of November 4, 2015 = 7998),
not to mention it being the most controversial
theory in recent decades (Goode, 2008). It has
caught this much attention because of its bold
claims in crime causation, methodology, and
policy.
One source of much controversy is the claim
of its theorists on the role of self-control in crime
causation. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990: 232)
boldly claimed that self-control is “the individual-
level cause of crime” that can explain crime at all
places and all times. People who have low self-
control are “impulsive, insensitive, physical (as
opposed to mental), risk-taking, short-sighted,
and non-verbal, and they will, therefore, tend to
criminal and analogous behavior”. They further
claimed that self-control could explain not only
variations in crime and analogous behaviors but
also those in accidents, bad health, and negative
marriages, work, and friendship ties. With this,
they implied that social factors believed to be
correlates of crime are just social consequences
of having low self-control. These views are largely
at a variance of the conventional thinking about
crime, and if proven, “most sociological theories
can be relegated to the criminological dustbin”
 72
(Evans et al., 1997: 479).
In line with this thinking, Gottfredson and
Hirschi (1990) explicitly attacked Sutherland’s
differential association theory and Aker’s social
learning theory, labeling these theories as cultural
deviance theory. For them, these learning theories
are “redundant or superluous” (p.71) and “thus
clearly false” (p.156). Their claims are based on
this premise:
People who lack self-control tend to dislike
settings that require discipline, supervision,
or other constraints on their behavior; such
settings include school, work, and for that
matter, home. These people, therefore, tend
to gravitate to “the street” or, at least in
adolescence, with the same-sex peer group
(Gottfredson&Hirschi, 1990: 157).
They concluded that self-control is the
primary determinant of membership in delinquent
peer groups, and thus the relationship between
peer deviance and delinquency is spurious since
both are caused by low self-control. Individuals
who are impulsive and possess other elements of
low self-control tend to have dificulty in making
and maintaining conforming friends and will end
up befriending low-self-controlled individuals,
thereby forming a group of individuals who
have low self-control and who commit crimes
(Gottfredson&Hirschi, 1990).
The interplay of self-control and social
learning variables
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) argued that
self-control would render social learning variables-
delinquency relationship spurious. In their view,
birds of the same feather lock together. On the
other hand, Aker’s (2008: 85) countered this by
quoting Benjamin Franklin, “If you lie down with
dogs, you get up with leas,” implying that peer
deviance has direct effects on delinquency and
The Interplay of Self-Control
that self-control is not the only cause of crime. As
pointed above, this claim is empirically supported
- self-control and differential association have
comparable strong effects on delinquency (see
Pratt & Cullen, 2000 and Pratt et al., 2010 for
meta-analyses). Differential association retains its
effects on delinquency even after controlling for
self-control and vice-versa. Little research work
shows, however, that differential association
variables have stronger effects than self-control
(e.g. Beaver et al., 2015; Hwang & Akers, 2003).
However, most of these studies employed
perceptual measures of peer deviance, which have
been found to be misperceived by respondents,
especially by persons with low self-control
(Boman, Stogner, Miller, Grifin &Krohn, 2011;
Meldrum &Boman, 2013; Rebellon&Modecki,
2014; Young, Barnes, Meldrum &Weerman, 2011).
Consequently, direct peer delinquency measures
appear to be better than perceptual measures
in measuring peer delinquency (Meldrum
&Boman, 2013) and the effect of self-control on
delinquency is greater than peer deviance if it is
assessed through direct measures (Meldrum et
al., 2009; Rebellon&Modecki, 2014).
To reduce bias associated with perceptual
measures, some researchers proposed the error
correlation method using latent variable modeling
(Matsueda& Anderson, 1998; Rebellon, 2012).
However, subsequent research comparing the
effects of perceptual measures adjusted using this
method and direct peer delinquency measures
revealed that error correlation strategy fails to
eliminate the bias associated with perceptual
measures (Boman, Rebellon& Meldrum, 2016;
Rebellon&Modecki, 2014). Also, an alternative
operationalization of perceptual measure
by asking respondents for individual peer’s
involvement in delinquency failed to reduce the
said bias (Meldrum &Flexon, 2015). Nevertheless,
within the perspective of situational action theory
(SAT), the use of perceptual measures of peer
Barrera, Capistrano, Feliciano, Alaban, Agusin, Locsin, and Villabeto
delinquency along with self-control has been
suggested to be acceptable. As Hirtenlehner,
Pauwels and Mesko (2015: 541) note, “…
according to SAT it is the subjectively perceived
moral context and the perceived provocation or
temptation in a setting that renders the exercise
of self-control relevant.”
However, instead of pitting head-to-head,
some researchers treated these rival theories as
complementary. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990)
argued that persons with low self-control tend
to self-select delinquent peers. And based on the
prediction of social learning theory, differential
association provides a context where an individual
is presented with models who are delinquents,
provide rewards to delinquent behaviors, and
espouse attitude favorable to delinquency (Akers,
2009). It is likely possible then that differential
association mediates the effects of self-control
on delinquency. In this model, low self-control
leads to “locking” with deviant peers which later
turns to delinquency. Indeed, previous research
found that differential association mediated
the low self-control-delinquency link (see e.g.
Chapple, 2005; Malouf, Stuewig& Tangney,
2012; McGloin&Shermer, 2009; Wright et al.,
1998). Self-control indirectly affects delinquency
through association of delinquent peers.
Also, the interplay of self-control and
differential association might follow an
interaction model. Wright et al. (2001) proposed
a life-course interdependence model to describe
this complementary role between self-control
and differential association. It could be that the
effects of self-control on delinquency vary by
levels of peer inluence, and vice versa. Previous
research supports this model: differential
association aggravates the effects of self-control
on delinquency and vice versa (Cochran, Jones,
Jones & Sellers, 2016; Ford & Blumenstein, 2012;
Higgins & Makin, 2004; Hirtenlehner et al., 2015;
Meldrum, Young, &Weerman, 2009; Ousey&
73
Wilcox, 2007; Wright, Caspi& Mofitt, 2001).
The effects of low self-control on delinquency
are stronger when individuals have peers who
commit delinquent acts and espouse delinquent
deinitions.
Thus, we attempt to model the relationship
of self-control, differential association, and
delinquency among Filipino college students in
three ways:
1. The relationship between differential as-
sociation and delinquency is spurious since
both are determined by low self-control.
When self-control is included into the model
of differential association-delinquency re-
lationship, the latter relationship is dimin-
ished.
2. The relationship between self-control and
delinquency is mediated by differential as-
sociation. When the differential association
is included into the model of self-control-de-
linquency relationship, the latter relation-
ship is diminished.
3. The relationship between self-control
and delinquency is moderated by differen-
tial association. In particular, the effects of
self-control on delinquency are increased
by having peers who commit crimes and es-
pouse delinquent norms.
METHODOLOGY
Data Gathering
Data used in this study were the results of a
self-report survey of Filipino college students (n
= 211) at four universities (1 state and 3 private)
in Dumaguete City, Philippines. The current
sample size possesses the necessary power to
test the models built in this study because the
study requires a minimum of 184 respondents to
achieve a power of 0.95 with 0.15 (medium) effect
size, 0.05 signiicance level, and 12 independent
 74 The Interplay of Self-Control

variables as parameters.1 The respondents were
identiied conveniently from the social science
classes which were selected before the survey.
Initially, necessary consent from each of the
universities was sought. Three social science
classes were then selected at the state university
and one class from each of the three private
universities. These social science classes comprise
students from different degree programs and year
levels. Respondents were asked to participate in
the self-report survey and were informed that
their participation in the survey was voluntary
in nature. The survey period started in July and
ended in August 2016.
The majority of the respondents were female
(56%), and most of them were about 18 years (Table
1); more than half of them came from families/
households with monthly income of P10,000
and below. Although there are concerns on the
non-representativeness of the current sample,
self-control, and the social learning theories were
proposed as general theories of crime to explain
all crimes, at all places and times, and in all types
of samples, including the convenient sample of
this study. Thus, the randomness of the current
sample is not a primary concern in testing the
theories. However, caution should be taken in
generalizing the results to a larger population of
Filipino students.
Measures
Delinquency. Delinquency was measured
using a modiied form of the normative deviance
scale developed by Vazsonyi et al. (2001). The
normative deviance scale was developed to
measure delinquency with the aim of overcoming
cultural differences in measuring delinquency.
It measures both serious and non-serious forms
of delinquency. However, since the target

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the variables in this study

Variable Mean/n Standard Skewness Min-Max
deviation/%
Gender (Female =1) .56 0-1
Age 18.58 2.123 1.517 15-28
Household/Family Monthly Income 3.64 1.755 .274 1-7
Below P1,000 (1) 22 10.9%
P1,001-P5,000 (2) 38 18.9%
P5,001-P10,000 (3) 48 23.9%
P10,001-P20,000 (4) 26 12.9%
P20,001-P30,000 (5) 28 13.9%
P30,001-P50,000 (6) 27 13.4%
Above P50,000 (7) 12 6%
Religiosity 16.5073 2.50806 -.594 7-20
Self-control Attitudinal Scale 56.65 12.413 -.313 23-87
Self-control Social Bond Scale 159.14 20.447 -.264 101-200
Peer Deviance 2.50 3.965 1.959 0-16
Peer Norms 1.82 4.230 3.331 0-32
Delinquency 3.78 7.325 2.946 0-39
Barrera, Capistrano, Feliciano, Alaban, Agusin, Locsin, and Villabeto
respondents of this study were college students
of which some were young adults, the scale was
modiied by excluding some items that would
not be considered as deviant when committed by
adults. Acts that were excluded include lying about
one’s age to get into a bar and stayed out all night
without informing parents. Consequently, the
modiied normative deviance scale comprised of
39 items such as “Have you ever:” avoided paying
for something (e.g. movies, bus, food, etc.), sold
any drugs, used drugs (e.g. cocaine, marijuana,
etc.), and hit or threaten to hit a person. Responses
to the items were “Yes = 1” or “No =0”. All items
were summed to create the delinquency index
of which higher scores indicate a higher number
of delinquent acts committed. However, caution
is given in interpreting the results, because the
deviance scale asked for lifetime deviance. The
order of the causal linkages may be in reverse as
it is most likely that delinquency affects the key
variables in the study (Akers, 2009; Thornberry et
al., 1994).
Independent variables
Self-control theory
Self-control attitudinal scale.
Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) proposed that
the individual-level cause of crime is self-control.
Over the years, self-control has been measured
using two types of scales – attitudinal and
behavioral. However, the behavioral scales (e.g.
Keane et al., 1993) received criticisms saying that
they contribute to the tautology of the theory (see
Akers, 1991) for using acts analogous to crime
(e.g. failure to wear a seatbelt) to predict crime.
Therefore, to overcome the tautology criticism,
the use of attitudinal scales is preferred. In this
study, we used the attitudinal self-control scale of
Grasmick et al. (1993). Their self-control measure
has six components – impulsivity, simple tasks,
75
risk seeking, physical activities, self-centered, and
temper. Each of these components is composed
of four items such as “I often act on the spur
of the moments without stopping to think.”; “I
frequently try to avoid projects that I know will be
dificult.”; “I like to test myself now and then by
doing something a little risky.”; “If I had a choice,
I would almost always rather do something
physical than something mental.”; “I try to look
out for myself irst, even if it means making things
dificult for other people.”; and “Often, when I’m
angry at people, I feel more like hurting them than
talking to them about why I am angry.” Responses
to these items range from “Somewhat agree = 1”
to “Strongly disagree = 4.” In the current sample,
the scale is highly reliable with Cronbach alpha =
0.90. All responses were summed of which higher
scores indicate high self-control.
Self-control social bond scale. Self-control
was also measured using a social bond scale for
two reasons. First, several studies have shown
that attitudinal scales tend to underestimate the
effects of self-control on crime (see Engel, 2012
for a meta-analysis). Second, Hirschi (2004:
543) re-deined self-control as “the tendency to
consider the full range of potential costs of a
particular act,” arguing that self-control and social
control are in fact the same. With this, Hirschi
rejected his and Gottfredson’s original trait-based
conceptualization of self-control and favored a
wider set of internal set of inhibitions – mainly
composed of four elements of the social bond,
namely: attachment, commitment, involvement,
and belief. Hirschi admitted that they borrowed
their original conceptualization of self-control
from psychology and this move created several
problems. First, the original self-control suggests
specialization in criminal behaviors which is
contrary to their theoretical propositions. Second,
theirs was a personality approach which also
contradicts their argument that personality traits
are less important in explaining delinquency.
 76
Third, they suggested that “offenders act as they
do” and “they are what they are because of their
original conceptualization” (Hirschi, 2004: 542).
Finally, the individual self-control traits have a
comparable predictive ability as that of when all
are combined.
With this, the study employed a modiied
form of the self-control social bond measure
used by Dodson (2009) which she modiied from
the work of Gibbs et al. (2008). The Attachment
component comprised of 17 items, for example:
“I care a lot about what my parents think of me.”
The Commitment component was composed of
17 items which included “Grades are important to
me.” The Belief component also comprised of 14
items, for example: “Rules restricting alcohol use
on campus should not be strictly enforced” (reverse
coded). Finally, the Involvement component was
made up of 3 items which included “Join campus
activities in clubs, associations, societies or other
organizations that focus on career interest and/or
academic discipline.” Responses to the irst three
components ranged from “Strongly agree = 4” to
“Strongly disagree = 4,” while the involvement
component’s responses ranged from “Always =
4” to “Never = 1”. The scale’s Cronbach alpha
is 0.876. All items were summed into a scale of
which higher scores indicate higher self-control.
Social learning theory
Peer deviance. Akers (2009) proposed that
four elements of the social learning process
increase delinquency. These are differential
association, deinitions, imitation, and differential
reinforcement. However, these components
do not have a similar magnitude of effect on
delinquency, with differential association having
the strongest effect comparable to that of self-
control (Pratt et al., 2010). Thus, this study used
differential association scales (i.e. peer deviance
and peer norm qualities) from Rochester Youth
The Interplay of Self-Control
Development Study measures reported by
Thornberry et al. (1994). For peer deviance,
the respondents were asked how many of their
friends in the past six months committed the eight
delinquency items which included “Hit someone
with the idea of hurting them” and “Damaged or
destroyed someone else’s property on purpose.”
Response categories for these items were “Most
of them = 2,” “Some of them = 1,” and “None
of them = 0.” Cronbach alpha for this scale is
0.944. All items were summed to create a scale
with higher scores indicating bigger proportion
of delinquent friends.
Peer norms. This variable relects the
respondents’ perception about their peer’s
reaction if they (the respondents) would commit
delinquent acts. In measuring peer norms, the
respondents were asked, “What would your
friends say if they know that you have committed
the following acts?" This question was followed
by six delinquency items, such as “Attacked
someone with a weapon or with the idea of
seriously hurting them” and “Stole something
worth more than Php 100.” Response categories
for these items were “Say it was wrong = 1,” “Say
nothing = 2,” and “Say it was okay = 3.” The
scale’s Cronbach alpha is 0.944. Higher scores
indicate higher delinquent peer norms.
Interaction terms
Four interaction terms were created to
measure the interaction between self-control and
differential association. These interaction terms
were used to test whether measures of differential
association alleviate or aggravate the effects of self-
control on delinquency. Self-control (attitudinal
and social bond) and differential association
(peer deviance and peer norms) variables were
centered before creating multiplicative terms
(e.g. self-control X peer deviance). Thus, four
interaction terms were created: (1) Self-control
Barrera, Capistrano, Feliciano, Alaban, Agusin, Locsin, and Villabeto
attitudinal scale X Peer Deviance, (2) Self-control
attitudinal scale X Peer norms, (3) Self-control
social bond X Peer deviance, and (4) Self-control
social bond X Peer norms.
Control variables
Four known individual and social correlates
of delinquency were included in the models as
control variables. The variables were sex (Male
= 0, Female = 1), Age (in years), monthly
family/household income (Below P1,000 =
1; P1,001-P5,000 = 2; P5,001-P10,000 = 3;
P10,001-P20,000 = 4; P20,001-P30,000 = 5;
P30,001-P50,000 = 6; and Above P50,000 = 7),
and religiosity. Religiosity was measured using a
scale comprising of ive items (Cronbach alpha =
0.673). Items include “My ideas about religion are
one of the most important parts of my philosophy
of life” and “Believing as I do about religion is very
important to being the kind of person I want to
be” taken from Cannon (2005). Responses ranged
from “Strongly agree = 4” to “Strongly disagree
= 1.”
RESULTS
Negative binomial regression was used
to model delinquency because the dependent
variable is basically a count data which exhibits
over-dispersion. Over-dispersed count data are
best modeled by count regression models such as
negative binomial regression (Gardner, Mulvey &
Shaw, 1995). In all models, the data have an over-
dispersion parameter of not less than 1.7. Thus,
negative binomial regression best its the current
data.
Recall that using self-control and differential
association, we speculated that delinquency
can be modeled in three ways: (1) self-control
diminishes the effects of differential association
on delinquency; (2) differential association
77
mediates the relationship between self-control
and delinquency; (3) differential association
moderates the relationship between self-control
and delinquency. Table 3 presents the negative
binomial regression models of delinquency using
self-control, differential association, interaction
terms, and control variables as predictors.
In general, the results suggest that there
is no current evidence supporting Gottfredson
and Hirschi’s (1990) contention that the
relationship between differential association and
delinquency is spurious. In fact, it appears that
self-control theory and social learning theory are
complementary: differential association mediates
the effects of self-control on delinquency.
The spuriousness of the differential
association-delinquency relationship
Model 4 provides evidence refuting
Gottfredson and Hirshi’s (1990) speculation that
self-control will diminish the effects of differential
association on delinquency. As shown, the effects
of differential association variables continue to
exert signiicant effects on delinquency despite
including self-control measures simultaneously in
the model. Thus, current evidence suggests that
the relationship between differential association
and delinquency is not spurious.
Mediating effects of differential association in
the self-control-delinquency
relationship
Model 4 shows that it is the differential
association that diminishes the effects of self-
control on delinquency. Differential association,
however, does not negate the relationship
between self-control and delinquency. The model
implies that differential association mediates such
relationship because of a prior signiicant direct
effect of self-control measures on delinquency.
 78 The Interplay of Self-Control

Table 2. Negative binomial regression models of delinquency among Filipino college students. The 95% Wald
conidence interval of the coeficients are reported in parentheses
Independent variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Key Independent Variables
Self-control Attitudinal -.026* -.003 -.004
Scale [-.047, -.004] [-.023, .018] [-.024, .016]
Self-control Social Bond -.019** .003 .003
Scale [-.033, -.005] [-.011, .017] [-.012, .017]
Peer Deviance .177** .177** .242**
[.097, .257] [.096, .258] [.143, .341]
Peer Norms .078* .083* .082
[.007, .150] [.008, .158] [-.021, .184]
Interaction Terms
SC Attitudinal x Peer .006
Deviance [-.001, .012]
SC Attitudinal x Peer Norms .000
[-.007, .006
SC Social Bond x Peer .003
Deviance [-.001, .007]
SC Social Bond x Peer Norms -.002
[-.007, .003]
Control Variables
Age -.017 -.023 .017 .022 .044
[-.137, .103] [-.147, .101] [-.083, .118] [-.081, .125] [-.060, .148]
Sex -.293 -.132 .156 .128 .192
[-.836, .251 [-.692, .428] [-.330, .641] [-.370, .626] [-.300, .683]
Monthly Household/Family .215** .203* .150* .151* .134
Income [.056, .375] [.041, .365] [.009, .290] [.007, .295] [-.008, .277]
Religiosity -.065 .004 -.065 -.072 -.038
[-.167, .036] [-.095, .103] [-.157, .027] [-.169, .026] [-.136, .060]
Constant 3.398 3.932* .400 .032 .142
[-.066, 6.863] [.283, 7.582] [-2.054, 2.854] [-3.403, 3.468] [-2.395, 2.679]
Likelihood ration X2 14.583* 16.328** 61.50** 61.736** 70.622**
Legend:*p<0.05, **p<0.01

Moderating effects of differential association have no signiicant effect on delinquency. That

in the self-control-delinquency relationship
Model 5 shows the interaction effects of
self-control and differential association measures
on delinquency. As shown, all interaction terms
is, differential association does not moderate
the relationship between self-control and
delinquency. Thus, the complementary roles
of self-control and differential association in
only through the mediating effect of differential
Barrera, Capistrano, Feliciano, Alaban, Agusin, Locsin, and Villabeto
association in the self-control-delinquency link.
DISCUSSION
In this study, we examined the relationships
between self-control, differential association, and
delinquency among Filipino college students
in Dumaguete City. Based on self-control and
social learning theories and previous research,
we speculated that such relationships can be
modelled in three ways: (1) the relationship
between differential association and delinquency
is spurious; (2) the relationship between self-
control and delinquency is mediated by differential
association; and (3) the relationship between
self-control and delinquency is moderated by
differential association. In general, both self-
control and differential association have direct
effects on delinquency. The spuriousness thesis
of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990), however, is
not supported by current evidence. In fact, self-
control and social learning are complementary
– differential association mediates the effects
of self-control on delinquency. In spite of this,
Filipinos are known to possess high self-control
and value prudence, calmness, and non-violence
in personal and social settings (Tiangco, 2005).
Both self-control and differential association
have direct effects on delinquency. Speciically,
self-control (attitudinal and bond) measures
are negatively related to delinquency even after
controlling for socio-demographic variables,
thereby supporting the predictions of Gottfredson
and Hirschi (1990), Hirschi (2004), and previous
research (Pratt et al., 2000). This means to say,
respondents who lacked self-control tended
to commit more delinquent acts. On the other
hand, differential association (peer deviance and
peer norms) measures are positively related to
delinquency. Those who had delinquent peers
who espoused deviance tended to commit more
delinquency. This inding supports social learning
79
theory (Akers, 2009; Akers & Jennings, 2009) and
its previous tests (Pratt et al., 2010). Overall, these
direct effects echo previous indings that both
self-control and differential association are strong
predictors of delinquency.
Although commonly seen as competing
theories and tested head-to-head, the theories
are in fact complementary based on the current
evidence. Self-control did not extinguish the
effects of differential association on delinquency,
thereby negating the arguments of Gottfredson
and Hirschi (1990). In fact, differential association
mediates the relationship between self-control
and delinquency, supporting previous research
(e.g. Chapple, 2005; Wright et al., 1998). That is,
those who have low self-control tend to self-select
delinquent peers who hold favorable attitudes
toward deviance and who in turn increase the
probability of committing delinquent acts. These
results suggest that self-control and social learning
theories are complementary, thereby supporting
claims by some scholars (e.g. Akers, 2008; Evan
et al., 1997; Meldrum, Young &Weerman, 2009).
Thus, as pointed out by Meldrum, Young and
Weerman (2009: 368), “theoretical integration
of self-control theory and social learning theory
may lead to a more precise understanding of the
contours of criminal offending.”
These indings also point out important
practical implications in the Philippine setting.
It is important to develop high self-control
among Filipino children through, say, proper
parenting (e.g. parental supervision, prompt
identiication of wrongs, and non-violent
discipline; Gottfredson&Hirschi, 1990). However,
developing high self-control is not enough in
turning adolescents from delinquency. Delinquent
peers and beliefs that encourage it still affect
them in spite of being able to control themselves.
Thus, not only do Filipino adolescents need high
self-control; they also need training on selecting
non-deviant peers.
 80
Although the current study ills a signiicant
gap in the literature, caution is given to readers
in interpreting the results. Since the sample was
not randomly generated, the results cannot be
generalized to a larger population. It is, therefore,
interesting to examine whether the relationships
found in this study hold true among a more
representative sample of Filipinos. Nevertheless,
the current study might serve as a seed for further
theory-building in the country. Gottfredson and
Hirschi (1990) also speculated that there is a
measurement overlap between the respondents’
reported delinquency and their reported
delinquency of peers. In reporting their peers’
delinquency, it is possible that they are reporting
theirs. Several possibilities may give rise to this
event:
(1) The respondent may have been at the
scene, himself engaging in the activity; (2)
the respondent may impute his own quali-
ties to his friends; (3) the respondent may
impute friendship to people like himself;
4) the respondent’s friends may have told
him about delinquencies he did not himself
witness; or (5) the respondent may have
heard about his friend’s delinquencies
from people who witnessed or heard about
them.”(Gottfredson&Hirschi, 1990: 157)
In supporting these speculations, studies
found that respondents misperceived peer deviance
(Boman, Stogner, Miller, Grifin &Krohn, 2011;
Meldrum &Boman, 2013; Rebellon&Modecki,
2014; Young, Barnes, Meldrum &Weerman, 2011).
Also, some researchers found that such indirect
peer deviance measures underestimate the effects
of self-control. For example, Meldrum, Young,
and Weerman (2009) found that self-control had
stronger effects than peer deviance when the
latter was assessed using direct measures (i.e.
using the self-reported delinquency by peers of
the respondents). The same indings were found
The Interplay of Self-Control
by (Rebellon&Modecki, 2014). Examining this
line of inquiry in the Philippines will shed more
light on the relationships investigated.
CONCLUSION
The current indings imply that self-control
and differential association have direct effects
on delinquency among a sample of Filipino
college students in Dumaguete City. In addition,
differential association mediates the effects of
self-control on delinquency. That is, those who
have low self-control will self-select delinquent
peers who can encourage and facilitate offending.
Further, the current indings are contrary to
spuriousness thesis of self-control theory,
thereby suggesting that self-control and social
learning theory are complementary. Theoretical
integration hinged on the life-course perspective
(e.g. Wright et al., 2001) might be a proitable way
of explaining Filipino delinquency.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to express our gratitude to
Enrique Oracion of Silliman University, Rubie
Rubio of Negros Oriental State University-Main
Campus, Cyndi Archival of Negros Oriental State
University-Siaton Campus, and the editors of the
PRISM journal for comments on earlier drafts
of this paper. Likewise, we would like to thank
the anonymous reviewers for the constructive
comments and suggestions without which this
paper would not be better.
Notes
1. This estimation was done using GPower
3.1.9.2 software.
Barrera, Capistrano, Feliciano, Alaban, Agusin, Locsin, and Villabeto
REFERENCES
Akers, R. L. (1991). Self-control as a general theory
of crime. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, 7(2), 201-211.
Akers, R. L. (1996). Is differential association/
social learning cultural deviance theory?
Criminology, 34(2), 229-247.
Akers, R. L. (2008). Self-control and social
learning theory. In E. Goode (Ed), Out of
control: Assessing the general theory of
crime. In E. Goode (Ed), Out of control:
Assessing the general theory of crime.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Akers, R. L. (2009). Social learning and social
structure: A general theory of crime and
deviance. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Akers, R. L. & Jennings, W. (2009).Social
learning theory. In J. Miller (Ed.), 21st
Century criminology: A reference handbook.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Akers, R. L. & Jensen, G.F. (2006). The empirical
status of social learning theory of crime and
deviance: The past, present, and future. In
F.T. Cullen, J.P. Wright& K.R. Blevins (Eds),
Taking stock: The status of criminological
theory: Advances in criminological theory,
Vol 15. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Beaver, K. M., Al-Ghamdi, M. S., Kobeisy, A. N.,
Alqurashi, F. H., Schwartz, J. A., Connolly,
E. J., & Gajos, J.M. (2015). The effects of
low self-control and delinquent peers on
alcohol, tobacco, and drug use in a sample
of Saudi Arabian youth.International Journal
of Offender Therapy and Comparative
81
Criminology. Advanced online publication.
doi:0306624X15583670
Boman, J. H., Stogner, J. M., Miller, B. L., Grifin,
O. H., &Krohn, M. D. (2011). On the
operational validity of perceptual peer
delinquency: Exploring projection and
elements contained in perceptions. Journal
of Research in Crime and Delinquency,
49(4), 601-621.
Boman IV, J. H., Rebellon, C. J., & Meldrum, R.
C. (2016). Can Item-Level Error Correlations
Correct for Projection Bias in Perceived
Peer Deviance Measures? A Research Note.
Journal of Quantitative Criminology,
32(1), 89-102.
Cannon, K. D. (2005). “Ain't no faggot gonna
rob me!”: Anti-gay attitudes of criminal
justice undergraduate majors. Journal of
Criminal Justice Education, 16(2), 226-243.
Chapple, C. L. (2005). Self-control, peer relations,
and delinquency. Justice Quarterly, 22(1),
89-106.
Cochran, J. K. Jones, S., Jones, A.M., &
Sellers, C.S. (2016). Does Criminal
Propensity Moderate the Effects of Social
Learning Theory Variables on Intimate
Partner Violence? Deviant Behavior.
Advanced online publication. DOI:
10.1080/01639625.2015.1060793
Dodson, K. D. (2009). Tracing the evolution
of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s concept of
self-control: A conceptual and empirical
analysis. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Indiana University of
Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, USA.
 82
Engel, C. (2012). Low self-control as a source of
crime: A meta-study. Bonn, Germany: Max
Planck Institute for Research on Collective
Goods.
Evans, T. D., Cullen, F. T., Burton Jr, V. S.,
Dunaway, R. G., Benson, M. L. (1997). The
social consequences of self-control: Testing
the general theory of crime. Criminology,
35(3), 475-504.
Ford, J. A., & Blumenstein, L. (2012). Self-control
and substance use among college students.
Journal of Drug Issues, 43(1), 56-68.
Gardner, W., Mulvey, E. P. & Shaw, E. C. (1995).
Regression analyses of counts and rates:
Poisson, overdispersedpoisson, and negative
binomial models. Psychological Bulletin,
118(3), 392-404.
Gibbs, J. J., Dodson, K. D., Cho, B., & Clevenger,
S. (2008). Developing and testing a
revised measure of self-control in the
general theory of crime—inal report.
Unpublished manuscript.Indiana University
of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA.
Goode, E. (2008). Out of control: Assessing the
general theory of crime.Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Gottfredson, M.R. &Hirschi, T. (1990). A general
theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursick, R. J.
& Arneklev, B.J. (1993). Testing the core
empirical implications of Gottfredson and
Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(1),
5-29.
The Interplay Of Self-Control
Higgins, G.E. & Makin, D.A. (2004). Does social
learning theory condition the effects
of low self-control on college students’
software piracy? Journal of Economic Crime
Management, 2(2), 1-22.
Hirschi, T. (1996). Theory without ideas: Reply to
Akers. Criminology, 34(2), 249-256.
Hirschi, T. & Gottfredson, MR. (2008). Critiquing
the critics: The authors respond. In E. Goode
(Ed), Out of control: Assessing the general
theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Hirtenlehner, H., Pauwels, L., & Mesko, G. (2015).
Is the criminogenic effect of exposure to
peer delinquency dependent on the ability
to exercise self-control? Results from three
countries.Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(6),
532-543.
Hwang, S., & Akers, R. L. (2003). Substance use
by Korean adolescents: A cross-cultural
test of social learning, social bonding, and
self-control theories. In R. L. Akers & G. F.
Jensen (Eds.), Advances in criminological
theory: Vol. 11. Social learningtheory and
the explanation of crime: A guide for the
new century (pp. 39–64). New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction.
Keane, C., maxim, P.S., &Teevan, J.J. (1993).
Drinking and driving, self-control, and
gender: Testing a general theory of
crime. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 30(1), 30-46.
Malouf, E., Stuewig, J. & Tangney, J. (2012). Self-
control and jail inmates’ substance misuse
post-release: Mediation by friends’ substance
Barrera, Capistrano, Feliciano, Alaban, Agusin, Locsin, and Villabeto
use and moderation by age. Addictive
Behaviors, 37(11), 1198-1204.
Matsueda, R. L., & Anderson, K. (1998). The
dynamics of delinquent peers and delinquent
behavior. Criminology, 36(2), 269-308.
McGloin, J.M. &Shermer, L.O. (2009). Self-control
and deviant peer network structure. Journal
of Research in Crime and Delinquency,
46(1), 35-72.
Meldrum, R. C., &Boman, J. H. (2013). Similarities
and differences between perceptions
of peer delinquency, peer self-reported
delinquency, and respondent delinquency:
An analysis of friendship dyads. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 41(6), 395-406.
Meldrum, R. C., &Flexon, J. L. (2015). Is
peer delinquency in the eye of the beholder?
Assessing alternative operationalizations of
perceptual peer delinquency. Criminal Justice
and Behavior. Advanced online publication.
Doi: 10.1177/0093854815569729.
Meldrum, R. C., Young, J.T.N., Weerman, F.M.
(2009). Reconsidering the effect of self-
control and delinquent peers: Implications
of measurement for theoretical signiicance.
Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 46(3), 353-376.
Ousey, G. C., & Wilcox, P. (2007). The interaction
Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). The empirical
status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s
general theory of crime: A meta-analysis.
Criminology, 38(3), 931-964.
Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Blevins, K. R., Daigle,
83
L. E., &Madensen, T. D. (2006). The
empirical status of deterrence theory: A
meta-analysis. In F. T. Cullen, J. P. Wright &
K. R. Blevins ( Vol. Eds.), Taking stock: The
status of criminological theory—Advances
in criminological theory ( Vol. 15) (pp.
367–396). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Sellers, C. S., Winfree
Jr., TL., Madenses, T. D., Daigle, L. E. Fearn,
N.E. &Gau, J.M. (2010). The empirical status
of social learning theory: A meta-analysis.
Justice Quarterly, 27(6), 765-802.
Rebellon, C. J. (2012). Differential association and
substance use: Assessing the roles of
discriminant validity, socialization, and
selection in traditional empirical tests.
European Journal of Criminology, 9(1), 73-
96.
Rebellon, C.J. &Modecki, K.L. (2014). Accounting
for projection bias in models of delinquent
peer inluence: The utility and limits of
latent variable approaches. Journal of
Quantitative Criminology, 30 (2), 163-186.
Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of
criminology. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Tiangco, J. A. N. Z. (2005). Understanding the
Filipino philosophy of resiliency: katatagang-
loob [emotional strength/resiliency] and
its phenomenological considerations.In R.
M. Gripaldo (Ed.), Filipino cultural traits.
Washington, D.C: The Council for Research
in Values and Philosophy.
Thornberry, T. P., Lizotte, A.J., Krohn, M. D.,
Farnworth, M. & Jang, S. J. (1994).
Delinquent peers, beliefs, and delinquent
behavior: A longitudinal test of interactional
 84 The Interplay Of Self-Control

theory. Criminology, 32(1), 47-83.

Vazsonyi, A.T., Pickering, L.E., Junger, M. &

Hessing, D. (2001). An empirical test of
a general theory of crime: A four-nation
comparative study of self-control and the
prediction of deviance. Journal of research
in crime and Delinquency, 38(2), 91-131.

Warr, M. & Stafford, M. (1991). Inluence of

delinquent peers: what they think or what
they do? Criminology, 29(4)-851-866.

Wright, B.R.E., Caspi, A., Mofitt, T.E., Silva,

P.A. (1999). Low self-control, social bonds,
and crime: Social causation, social selection,
or both? Criminology, 37(3), 479-514.

Wright, B. R., Caspi, A. & Mofitt, T.E. (2001).

The Effects of Social Ties on Crime Vary by
Criminal Propensity: A Life-Course Model of
Interdependence. Criminology, 39(2):321-
348.

Young, J. (2011). How do they ‘end up together’?

A social network analysis of self-control,
homophily, ad adolescent relationships.
Journal of Quantitative Criminology,
27(3), 251-273.

Young, J. T., Barnes, J. C., Meldrum, R. C.,

& Weerman, F. M. (2011). Assessing
and explaining misperceptions of peer
delinquency. Criminology, 49(2), 599-630.