On Theory Integration Essay

On chinkler Theory in that location ar some(prenominal) founding tenets of obligate system (Gottfredson and Hirschi,1990) al iodin demeanour, lamentable or not, arises from the hedonistic intent to render pleasure and avoid annoyance and the behavior whitethorn be criminal or criminally analogous when the prole is insufficiently restrained from resorting to force or fraud in the pursuit of interest. direct in this context refers to restraining f char proceederizationors in the various(prenominal), in the form of internalised norms comparable to the super self-importance and ego, and the controlling ascertain and authority of sociable institutions, much(prenominal) as the family, school, or neighborhood. heedless (1961), for example, sees conformity in terms of internal containment through a lucky egotism- opinion, finis orientation, foiling permissiveness, and loyalty to norms, and outer containment which comes from the avail baron of pregnant roles and s ocial acceptance. Violation of these restraints involves soulfulnessal costs in the form of punishment, social rejection, or firing of future opportunities. Whether a person yields to enticement therefore depends on the balance in the midst of anticipated rewards and costs (Piliavin, Hardyck and Vadum, 1968). One of the more than or less significant with regards to this theory is the social control theory of Hirschi (1969, 1978, 1986), which suggests that conformity is dependent on the interrelation between the person and the purlieu (a stake in conformity), and that deviation results when the interrelation between the two is lost.The correlated elements of the bond are (1) attachment to an opposite(prenominal)s in the form of conscience, internalized norms, and caring what others think (2) cargo to effected goals (3) involvement in conventional pursuits incompatible with delinquent activities and (4) belief in the moral validity of conventional values. No special motive to pervert is proposed, since every cardinal and only(a) is loose to temptation, and the theory is have-to doe with with criminality in general rather than the commission of specialised abuses. The theory is silent about how bonds dilate or break down, or how anemic bonds produce deviant behavior other than by leaving the soul bump to deviate (Conger, 1976 Box, 1981). Several theorists maintain that weakness of the social bond can alone partially account for deviant behavior, and that single(a)isticistic variation in the motive to deviate moldiness be taken into account. This is the perspective taken by Elliott et al. (1985), who propose an integrating of strain, control, and social learning theories. However, Hirschi and Gottfredson keep back lately reaffirmed the view that no special motivation is commandd to explain crime, which is a vivid consequence of unrestrained human tendencies to seek pleasure and avoid pain (Hirschi and Gottfredson, 1988 Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). They express the compatibility of classical choice theories of criminal acts and the rationalist judgment of criminality as the purpose to commit crimes, but see the last mentioned(prenominal) as a function of egotism control.Criminal acts are held to be the prompt gratification of common human desires, and require little readying, effort, or skill. They depend on opportunities and temptations, and are closely related to other socially dis clear acts, such as drinking, smoking, drug-taking, extracurricular sex, and even accidents, all of which become more likely when people lack ego control.Individuals who possess such generalized attributes have the tendency to be impulsive, insensible, physical (as fence to mental), daredevil, thoughtless, and nonverbal. Low self control is like 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 c rimes and analogous acts is lack of self control, it is supererogatory 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 in spite of appearance the individual and the relation of the two elements to each other. The primaeval concepts of containment theory are outer containment, inner containment, physiological and psychological pushes and the social stratosphere or pressures and pulls. Outer or orthogonal containment Reckless, 1967470 is the ability of the conjunction, the state, the tribe, the village, the family, and other nuclear classifys to hold the individual within the bounds of accepted norms and expectations.It assumes that society and particular nuclear groups contain, steer, shield, divert, support, reinforce, and hold its members. This may include norms and expectations, customs, rules and laws. The theory, therefore , assumes that individuals are presented with a station of norms for different age groups, for males and females and for various statuses. From these expectations Reckless, 1967470, one is presented with the correct model of behavior. When talk abouting outer containment, it is in addition necessary to assume that deviant, illegal and unchaste behavior exists in most societies and that a society usually produces effective con causalitys.There are three major aspects Reckless, 1967470-471J of international containment for modern, mobile societies. Groups provide 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 allowable level. Secondly, in addition to presenting the individual with rules and limitations, groups must also provide one with meaningful roles and activities. These roles may field from the family to a c oadjutor group or an educational situation. Roles limit behavior and when there are no roles or few roles present, then the individual is left on his own to founder limits on behavior.A third subdivision of external containment Reckless, 1967471 is that of group reinforcement. This includes a thought of belonging and identity, supportive relationships and acceptance by the group. This agent 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 given norms of society.Inner containment Reckless, 1967475J is the ability of the person to follow expected norms and, therefore, to direct himself. It involves the individual personalitys need to pop off 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 ph enomena which may peril the self image or generate one feel guilty. It is ones stake in conformity, or ones moral 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, change and impersonal, and as the individual spends an increasing nitty-gritty of time away from home base. change magnitude impersonalization means that the self must defend greater directional control. There are certain components of the self which strengthen it to dress up deflection from societal norms. These components make it feasible for the individual to contain himself in a modern, mobile environment. They are a favorable self concept, goal orientation or inspiration level, level of frustration tolerance and retention of norms.The first component of self, accord to Reckless 1967475, is the favorable self perception. The individual who perceives his own responsib ility provide act responsible. A favorable self concept aids in following approved standards of behavior. The person who perceives himself as honest, reliable and stabilising will most likely act that way.Goal direction Reckless, 1967476 is the second component of self which gives soaring directional capability. potentiality for inner direction is the result of focusing on such approved goals as education and job improvement. This is especially genuine when goals involve long range planning and effort. This insures against deviance because of the necessity to conform to socially approved methods to obtain the goals. Related to goal orientation is ones aspiration level which should consist of realistically gettable goals.The third self factor Reckless, 1967476J is that of frustration tolerance. This tolerance should be able to hold up pressures, failure and disappointments. Containment theory assumes that a high frustration tolerance will sequester the individual against be diverted from his course. It enables a person to be more in control of the situation.The last component Reckless, 1967476J of inner containment is retention of norms. This retention is the result of adherence, acceptance, and commitment, appellative with, legitimation of laws, codes, values, customs and institutions. It is, therefore, assumed that self containment is a personal internalization of models of behavior. frequent strength and ordinary weakness in self containment represents a normal range of self development. An abnormal manifestation would be extreme rigidity of character. This may be the result of faulty development.Integrating Theories The diversion of control theory and containment theory is base 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. While in the latter theory, the central point is to provide ways on how deviant behaviors will be contained. Hence, theory A (Control Theory) provides the explanation of why a certain individual behave in a given manner, and theory B (Containment Theory) outlines different means in hold back out such given manner. If we put this context, say for example in the reference of crew delinquencies, control theory will point out that a gang member shows juvenile behavior ascribable to peer pressure, poverty, lack of parental guidance, and and so forth The concern of containment theory on this crime is to provide realizable measurements for the person such as rehabilitation, education, guidance or apparently through guiding the person on understanding the concept of good 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 beaver embodied by the natural tendencies of a person since the behavioural patterns of the criminals is subsume 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 curb bit out the innate tendencies of the person to in going against the standard, or simply by being deviant of the status quo. some(prenominal) control and containment theories have the same concept of inner containment but differ in external terms.Reference(Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990 Rebellon & Waldman, 2003)Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A common Theory of Crime Stanford University PressRebellon, C., & Waldman, I. (2003). Deconstructing essence and Fraud An Empirical Assessment of the generalisation of Crime Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19(3), pp. 303-331.