Travis Hirschi: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen

:Finally, Tittle, Ward, and Grasmick (2004, p. 166) have illuminated the “conceptual incompleteness”of self-control theory. They proposed that the construct of self-control is not a single trait or predisposition but rather involves two elements: the capacity for self-control and the desire for self-control. Gottfredson and Hirschi have largely theorized about how people differ in their capacity or ability to exercise self-control. Tittle et al. suggested, however, that individuals may also vary in their interest in exercising self-restraint. Although a beginning study, Tittle et al. (2004) present evidence drawn from a community survey of Oklahoma City adults showing that self-control capacity and desire can have independent and interactive effects on forms of misbehavior (see also Cochran, Aleska, & Chamlin, 2006).

:In developing the concept of desire for self-control, Tittle et al. (2004) made an effort to bring motivation—what Hirschi had always taken for granted—back into control theory. They noted that one type of motivation is the desire to commit a crime; this is the kind of motivation that traditional theories, such as strain and social learning approaches, try to explain. By contrast, Tittle et al. contended that the desire for self-control was a qualitatively distinct kind of motivation; it was the motivation to resist the lure of offending. These two types of motivation—the desire to offend and the desire to exercise restraint—are not two ends of the same continuum. Rather, Tittle et al. asserted that they are likely competing motivational forces whose comparative strength may determine whether a criminal act occurs.