Travis Hirschi's social bond theory (1969) holds that we do not offend because we are tied to society by four bonds —attachment, commitment, involvement and belief— and that crime appears when those bonds weaken. The general theory of crime Hirschi wrote with Michael Gottfredson in 1990 moves the brake inside the person: what separates those who offend from those who do not is a trait, self-control, set in childhood by upbringing and barely changing afterwards. In the first, control is a relationship; in the second, an individual characteristic.
| Social bonds (Hirschi) | Low self-control (Gottfredson & Hirschi) | |
|---|---|---|
| Author and year | Travis Hirschi, Causes of Delinquency, 1969 | Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi, A General Theory of Crime, 1990 |
| Where the brake is | Outside: in bonds to family, school and community | Inside: in the capacity to resist immediate gratification |
| Elements | Attachment, commitment, involvement and belief | A single trait: impulsivity, risk-seeking, short-sightedness, insensitivity |
| When it is settled | At any time: bonds are gained and lost | Before the age of 8–10; stable afterwards |
| What makes someone stop offending | Regaining bonds: a job, a partner, a child | Nothing changes the trait; opportunities simply fall with age |
| Usual criticism | It does not explain where the motivation to offend comes from | Tautology: low self-control is inferred from the very behaviour it claims to explain |
// What they shareThe common ground
Both are control theories, which means they turn the question around. They do not ask why someone offends —temptation is taken for granted, because crime is the quick route to what one wants— but why most people do not. In both, the family is decisive, and both distrust explanations that need a special motivation: no strain, no learning, no subculture. What needs explaining is the brake, not the engine.
// Where they partThe differences that matter
Where control lives. In 1969 control is social: it lives in the relationship with others, and is lost if that relationship breaks. In 1990 it is individual: a trait of the person that goes everywhere with them, bonds or no bonds. Hirschi moved from a sociological theory to an almost psychological one.
Whether it can change. This is the practical consequence. With bonds, an adult can go straight: it is enough for something to tie him down —which is exactly what Sampson and Laub later showed with marriage and employment. With self-control, the window closes in childhood, and the only thing that works is early intervention in parenting.
What else it explains. Low self-control does not predict only crime. It also predicts accidents, smoking, truancy and unstable relationships: all are the behaviour of someone who prefers the immediate. Social bonds have no such ambition; they speak of delinquency, juvenile above all.
// One villain, two readingsTrevor Philips
Trevor Philips shows where the difference bites. With the 1969 bonds, the reading is of a man with nothing to lose: no family, no legal job, no community whose opinion matters to him and not the slightest belief in the legitimacy of the rules. All four bonds are broken. With the 1990 self-control, the reading is different and harsher: Trevor is impulsive, seeks risk, plans nothing more than a few minutes ahead and is indifferent to the harm he does, and has been since childhood. The first theory leaves a door open —if something tied him down, he would change— and in fact the little that sometimes holds him back in the whole game is his bond with Michael. The second closes it: there is nothing to recover because it never formed.
The mistake everyone makes
Believing the second theory replaces or "improves on" the first. Hirschi himself changed position, but criminology did not follow: both are alive and tested separately. The exam question is usually which of the two is compatible with an adult giving up crime after marrying or finding work. The answer is the 1969 one; the 1990 theory has to explain it as a mere drop in opportunity.
Which villains each one explains
Case files the archive analyses with each theory. The number is the total; the list shows the first ones.
Sources · further reading
- Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. University of California Press.
- Gottfredson, M. R. & Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford University Press.
- Sampson, R. J. & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life. Harvard University Press.
Theory questionsFrequently asked questions
What is the difference between social control theory and low self-control theory?
Hirschi's social bond theory (1969) places the brake on crime outside the person, in their bonds to family, school and society. Gottfredson and Hirschi's low self-control theory (1990) places it inside: an individual trait set in childhood that remains stable.
What are Hirschi's four social bonds?
Attachment (affection for parents, teachers and friends), commitment (what one has invested and could lose), involvement (time taken up by conventional activities) and belief (accepting that the rules are legitimate).
Can low self-control be corrected in adulthood?
According to Gottfredson and Hirschi, no: self-control is formed by upbringing before the age of eight or ten and stays stable afterwards. It is one of the most disputed points of the theory, because later research has found change across the life course.