Violence and Rehabilitative Process

Aggression and Violent Behavior 25 (2015) 95–103

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aggression and Violent Behavior
The assumption of rational choice theory in Alfred Adler’s theory of
crime: Unraveling and reconciling the contradiction in Adlerian theory
through synthesis and critique
Phillip Chong Ho Shon a,⁎, Shannon Barton-Bellessa b
a Faculty of Social Science and Humanities, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
b Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN, United States
⁎ Corresponding author at: Faculty of Social Science
Ontario Institute of Technology, Oshawa, Ontario L1H 7
8668×6516.

E-mail addresses: [email protected], pshon1@yahoo

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.07.004
1359-1789/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 27 January 2015
Accepted 8 July 2015
Available online 26 July 2015

Keywords:
Alfred Adler
Psychological theory of crime
Rational choice
Classical School
Alfred Adler is often introduced and discussed incorrectly as one of Freud’s students and as a psychoanalytic the-
orist in criminology and psychology textbooks. While thinkers such as Freud and Jung theorize about crime in
tangential ways, as almost an afterthought to their accounts of neurosis and personality, Alfred Adler was one
of the few pioneers in the history of psychology who had an actual theory of crime. Yet, Adler’s writings on
crime, its causes and assumptions have been largely overlooked in contemporary research. While Adler espoused
the view that crime represents a “useless” response to the social demands of life, we argue that Adler’s theory of
crime presupposes a rational choice model of criminal behavior, thus mirroring the Classical School perspective
on crime. This paper provides a synthesis and a critique of Alfred Adler’s theory of crime.

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction

Theories of crime implicitly presuppose a theory of self—a theory
that provides a metaphysical account of motivation. For instance,
choice theories of crime assume the rational, deliberative capacity
of subjects to choose crime based on the principle of utility (Arrigo
& Young, 1998). Differential theory of crime implicitly assumes a
subject’s (un)conscious need for approval from sources of moral au-
thority as an underpinning of subjectivity (Bracher, 1993; Burgess &
Akers, 1966); causal theories of crime assume the presence of an al-
most universalizable, decontextualized force (e.g., self-control) that
drives behavior (see Akers & Sellers, 2013). Even life-course theory
assumes a positive, forward movement of a self toward social
integration—unless hampered by snares—in its theory of self (see
Moffitt, 1993a; Sampson & Laub, 1993). Crime can be viewed as an
unnatural process that emerges when this life affirming momentum
of the will is disrupted, and major turning points in life such as a
strong marriage, steady employment, and military service facilitate
meaningful behavioral change that work to reintegrate persons to-
ward sociality (Farrington & West, 1995; Laub, Nagin, & Sampson,
1998; Laub & Sampson, 2003). A theory of self embedded in theories
of crime either affirms consciousness and agency of subjects in some
and Humanities, University of
K4, Canada. Tel.: +1 905 721

.com (P.C.H. Shon).
metaphysical way or vitiates their agency, rendering them as passive
dopes who are controlled by extraneous forces (Milovanovic, 1997).
Either way, theories of crime entail a theory of self.

Since a theory of self precedes a theory of crime, it may serve criminol-
ogists well to look to their disciplinary neighbors to learn how conscious-
ness, motivation, and agency have been formulated in psychology.
Although psychological theories of crime have not been as dominant as
the sociologically-informed theories of crime (e.g., differential association,
rational choice, social disorganization, life-course) in the discipline of
criminology (Laub & Sampson, 1991), they have the potential to benefit
criminology in the following ways: (1) psychological theories of crime al-
ready begin with a theory of self and an account of motivation in place.
For instance, Freud (1938) theorized that people are motivated by the
pleasure principle to satiate their physiological drives. Adler (1927a,
1927b) argued that individuals are motivated by a will-to-power which
guides their prideful striving for superiority. Such accounts of theories of
a self fill a glaring omission in contemporary criminological theory—a the-
ory of self and a concomitant theory of motivation. People commit
“crimes” for many reasons, and those reasons illuminate the variegated
forms of motivation that are often tacitly presupposed in theories of
crime. (2) A theory of self and its relation to society can be mined as the
beginning point of a philosophically informed theory of crime and the
state, for the assumptions about why people break rules lead to policies
that attempt to contain and control problematic behaviors (e.g., Akers &
Sellers, 2013). Consequently, criminologists have begun to argue for the
need for a theory of self behind crime, criminological and criminal justice
theory, as well as the self’s relationship to the state as a way of buttressing

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.avb.2015.07.004&domain=pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.07.004

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.07.004

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13591789

96 P.C.H. Shon, S. Barton-Bellessa / Aggression and Violent Behavior 25 (2015) 95–103
the discipline’s identity and legitimacy (Arrigo, 2008; Ferrell, 2009;
Kraska, 2006).

This paper examines the works of one of the notable psychological
theorists of personality and crime: Alfred Adler. There are several rea-
sons why Alfred Adler’s Individual and his theory of crime
should be examined relative to contemporary criminological theories.
First, most criminological texts fail to address psychological theories of
crime and their contributions to the understanding of criminal behavior
beyond the works of Freud, Jung, Fromm, or Erikson—to the virtual
exclusion of Alfred Adler. Or, Alfred Adler’s ideas are erroneously
misrepresented as psychoanalysis, and he as one of Freud’s students
(Barton-Bellessa et al., 2015). It behooves us to explore and understand
Adler’s contribution to psychology and criminology in its own right.

Second, despite the voluminous works on personality formation,
neurosis, crime, and psychotherapy, Alfred Adler’s ideas are less well
known when compared to his contemporaries such as Freud (1938)
and Jung (1957, 1971). Importantly, Individual is imbued
with its own set of metaphysical assumptions about the self (Stone,
2008) in ways that differ from psychoanalytic thinkers such as Freud
and Jung (Barton-Bellessa et al., 2015). Adler is also relevant for crimi-
nology as he was one of the few psychologists who had an actual theory
of crime. Adler did not treat crime and criminals as tertiary topics as
Freud and Jung did. For Adler, criminals, neurotics, perverts, and psy-
chotics were all explained using one cogent construct (see Adler,
2002a, 2003a). Thus, rather than perpetuating inaccurate information
about the works of Alfred Adler, it behooves us to fix the erroneous
state of criminology and psychological theories of crime by imparting
the actual views Adler espoused.

Finally, while Adler espoused a view similar to life-course theory of
crime nearly a hundred years ago, he did not call his theory of crime
by that name. In fact, although Adler’s theory of crime tacitly suggested
a life-course model, he overemphasized certain assumptions about
offending on an individual level while neglecting to examine certain so-
ciological aspects about crime. To date, however, few works have
assessed the strengths and weaknesses of Adler’s theory of crime, as
well as the points of convergence and divergence in relation to contem-
porary criminological theories, although a few have directly tested his
theory of crime (e.g., Highland, Kern, & Curlette, 2010; Newbauer &
Stone, 2010; Sweitzer, 2005). This paper attempts to fill in those short-
comings in Adler’s work by situating his theory relative to contempo-
rary sociological and criminological theories of crime. First, this paper
begins by providing an overview of Adler’s theory of personality and
crime. Second, it situates Adlerian theory of crime in the context of con-
temporary criminological theories. Finally, this paper provides a critique
of Adler’s theory of crime from a process- and power-oriented frame-
work of contemporary criminological perspectives. The implications
for Adler’s theory of crime are discussed.

2. Alfred Adler’s theory of personality and crime

From the Individual Psychological perspective of Alfred Adler, neu-
rotics, alcoholics, drug addicts, and “criminals” share a common bond:
lack of social interest. That is, rather than conceptualizing mental health
by the absence of intrapsychic conflict a la Freud, Adler (1927a, 1927b,
1931, 2007, 1917) was a proponent of examining the self’s relationship
to society in holistic ways, as indicated by the subjects’ response to the
demands of the three main tasks of life: friendship, work, and love. Ac-
cording to the tenets of Individual , a person has two princi-
pal ways of responding to the question of how he or she will contribute
to society and fellow citizens: in socially useful or socially useless ways
(Mosak & Maniacci, 1999). Mental health, in Adlerian theory, is mea-
sured in terms of social utility.

Since Adler’s pioneering foray into the causes of deviant behavior
(see The Collected Clinical Works of Alfred Adler, vols. 1–12), his fol-
lowers have extended his ideas to a variety of problematic behaviors,
such as purging (Marshall & Fitch, 2006), perfectionism (Stoltz &
Ashby, 2007), binge drinking (Lewis., & Wachter, 2006), safeguarding
through hesitation (Stewart, 2007), and narcissism (Boldt, 2007;
Maniacci, 2007). Preceding Adler-informed works have in common
the finding that individuals who engage in aberrant behaviors attempt
to use their symptoms as a way of gaining a false sense of superiority
over others: rather than contributing to society in socially useful and
productive ways, they have chosen to evade the main tasks of life by
adopting neurotic and criminal methods of reinforcing their false senses
of pride.

According to the tenets of Individual , personality begins
in infancy and is largely formed by the age of 5: an infant’s realization of
its dependence on others to meet its basic needs leads to feelings of in-
feriority. Although Adler discussed several other factors that led to feel-
ings of inferiority, he was emphatic about the influence of parenting
style and birth order on the development of personality (see Eckstein
et al., 2010). Adler’s works on the psychology of birth order and its effect
on the antithetical schemes of apperception and personality defects
(see Adler, 2005a) can be succinctly synthesized into two principal con-
structs that exemplify the consequences of a subjectively perceived and
created interpretation of reality: pampering and neglect.

In a nutshell, pampered children have been trained to be dependent
on others while neglected (i.e., hated, abused, maltreated) children
have been raised to be “on guard” in life. Whether pampered and
neglected children expect to be pampered or demand it, whether they
seek the continuation of pampering or demand to be compensated for
its absence as adults, the consequences of pampering and neglect lead
to a particular psychology of criminality (see Adler, 2004a). First, the ex-
pectation of continuation and compensation lead to discontentment
and perceptions of being “shortchanged,” which leads to a sense of en-
titlement that life owes something to those who have been brought up
pampered or neglected (Horney, 1950); if one feels entitled to some-
thing, the next step in the evolution of behavior is to forcibly take it
(see Beech, Fisher, & Ward, 2005; Fisher, Beech, Carich, & Kohut, 2006;
Polaschek & Gannon, 2004). Second, those who have been pampered
and neglected have not sufficiently developed their levels of social inter-
est; consequently, they are inconsiderate toward others and have diffi-
culty establishing relationships with other people. As they have been
brought up in self-centered ways, both pampered and neglected per-
sons maintain styles of life that are egotistical and self-indulgent
(Canter, 2000; Carich, Fisher, & Kohut, 2006; Horney, 1937). Third, be-
cause they have not figured out how to relate meaningfully to others,
there is a compulsion to gain a sense of superiority over them by decep-
tion, guile, or force (Horney, 1945). Finally, both pampered and
neglected individuals aim at escaping the responsibilities of life, society,
work, and intimacy by avoiding cooperative solutions.

If neurotics and criminals share similarities in the sources of their
feelings of inferiority, there are notable differences as well. Neurotics
have a limited sphere of activity, and this limitation forces neurotics to
control others through their symptoms. Criminals, on the other hand,
possess a limited amount of cooperation and a greater degree of activity.
Their striving toward superiority is not as restricted as that of neurotics.
According to Adler’s (2003b, 2006a) theory of crime, criminals’ propen-
sities toward crime are largely set by the age of 4 or 5. Children who are
neglected, abused, and unwanted are likely to form a mean view of the
world. They are likely to feel “shortchanged” and unloved, and to be-
lieve that they have been unfairly treated by those around them. Conse-
quently, their propensity toward crime is first manifested in juvenile
delinquency: those children will play truant from school and associate
with others who provide a sense of belonging, acceptance, and protec-
tion; school administrators and teachers who punish them will only
confirm the presupposed view that the world is an unjust place. Essen-
tially, the preceding statements encapsulated Adler’s theory of onset of
crime, juvenile delinquency, and gang membership.

If neurotics expect to be pampered by enlisting others to serve their
needs through their symptoms, criminals exercise agency and forcibly
take what they think is owed to them. According to Adler, criminals

97P.C.H. Shon, S. Barton-Bellessa / Aggression and Violent Behavior 25 (2015) 95–103
view the world as a hostile and dangerous place and see crime as the
only way of solving their problems. Rather than taking a social route
to solving the tasks of life—work, love, friendship—criminals take
“shortcuts” and secure “cheap victories” by using guile and force to
evade their responsibilities. Instead of diligently working to make
ends meet, a criminal steals; instead of finding a lifelong monogamous
partner, a criminal forcibly steals or buys sex (Canter, Bennell, Alison,
& Reddy, 1998; Polaschek & Gannon, 2004); instead of forming social
relationships, criminals form convenient unions for the sake of illicit
gain (Katz, 1988). According to Adler, the intent to do harm through
premeditated means to compensate for what has been lacking in their
lives is what differentiates the logic of criminals from neurotics, drunks,
and other deviant individuals.

For Adler, personality was explained as a subject’s attitude—toward
others, work, and life. Adler also believed in the capacity to change by
stimulating one’s social interest: he advocated for a change in people’s
attitude in gentle, caring ways in his practice as a therapist (Stein,
2008). Viewed in such a philosophical light, the decision to become in-
volved in crime and to desist from it was inextricably related to a change
in attitude. Therefore, Adler logically rejected any notions of an inborn
criminality: “Children of the same family and the same environment can
develop in entirely different ways…if criminal tendencies were an inborn
defect, or irrevocably ingrained by a person’s childhood environment, this
fact would be quite beyond understanding. From our own point of view,
however, we have no trouble understanding such a change” (Adler,
1931, 2007, pp. 169–170).

Although Adler’s Individual is systematic in explaining
the origins of personality, the process of change from a criminal life-
style to a law-abiding one was less cogently explained: “Some criminals
reform later in life, and criminal psychologists have often had difficulty in
explaining how burglars, on reaching the age of thirty, may settle down
and become good citizens…. Or perhaps they have already got all they
wanted from crime and thus it no longer serves a purpose. Perhaps, finally,
they are growing older, less suited to a criminal careernn their joints are
stiff and they are no longer as nimble as they were” (Adler, 1931, 2007,
pp. 169–170). That is, rather than examining the multitude of “push”
and “pull” factors that are implicative in the decision to desist from
crime, such as a good marriage, meaningful work, and other major turn-
ing points in life (Blokland & Nieuwbeerta, 2005; Bushway, Thornberry,
& Krohn, 2003; Farrington, 2007; Giordano, Cernkovich, & Rudolph,
2002; Laub & Sampson, 2003; Maruna, 1997, 2001; Warr, 1998), Adler
attributed desistance to simplistic and obvious causes (e.g., stiffening
joints).

Adler’s definition of crime and criminals also restricts who can be de-
fined as a criminal while automatically excluding others. For Adler, true
criminals plan their crimes; crime is profitable and entails an intentional
injury to others. This narrow definition of crime and criminals that Adler
employs also minimizes the harm to society as a result of their offenses
as a distinguishing criterion and unwittingly points the criminological
lens at the lower classes (Reiman, 2008). Although Adler acknowledged
the potential impact of structural forces such as poverty, racism, and
war on the development of personality, he did not adequately examine
how those factors might affect the decision to become involved in crime.
Similarly, although Adler was socialistic in his thinking and outlook, he
assumed a rather instrumentalist view of crime and neglected to inte-
grate the political economy of crime in his theoretical endeavors.
Where might Adler’s theory of crime and delinquency fit amongst con-
temporary criminological theories?

3. Validation of Adler’s theory of crime in contemporary theories
of crime

Individual-level theories attempt to explain crime as a function of
personal deficits. For example, the Classical School attempts to link the
causes of criminal behavior to rational thought or free will. Deterrence
theories assume that individuals commit crimes after weighing the
rewards and costs (e.g., Beccaria, 1764, 2009; Clarke & Cornish, 1985).
Contemporary Classical School theories, also known as opportunity the-
ories (e.g., Rational Choice, Routine Activities, Lifestyle Theories), posit
that crime is a choice that is made after rational calculation, although
it is also influenced by opportunities to participate in illicit behavior
that are present in everyday life (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Thus, in the
Classical School framework, present day events and needs are more in-
strumental in the decision-making processes than past experiences
(Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 2011). Theorists argue that structural variables,
such as time and space, influence the commission of criminal and devi-
ant acts rather than just the individual differences of offenders who are
prone toward criminality (see Asbridge & Butters, 2013; Felson, 2002;
Hindelang, Gottfredson, & Garofalo, 1978).

The Positivist School of thought, conversely, seeks to explain crime
through individual and environmental/structural influences that pre-
dispose an individual toward crime. Traditional biological theories of
crime, exemplified in the work of Ceseare Lombroso, assume physical
defect as a cause of crime (Beaver et al., 2009; Lombroso, Gibson, &
Rafter, 2006). Modern day biological theories incorporate both biologi-
cal and environmental factors that influence criminal behavior: the nu-
merous causes of brain damage, trauma, and cognitive functioning
(Raine, 2013); maternal smoking (Verny, 2012); alcohol (Larkby,
Goldschmidt, Hanusa, & Day, 2011); drug use (Pulsifer, Butz, O’Reilly
foran, & Belcher, 2008; Wright, 2011); stress (Fisher et al., 2011);
birth complication (Raine, Brennan, & Mednick, 1997); and exposure
to lead and other environmental toxins (Ernhart, 2006; Wright, 2011)
contribute to a failure in impulse control (Moffitt, 1993b; Pincus,
2001; Tibbetts & Piquero, 1999).

Social bond theorists, on the other hand, attribute the causes of crim-
inal behavior, primarily, to structural forces. According to Durkheim
(1933, 1997), a state of normlessness, along with a lack of social regula-
tion, emerges as societies modernize. He hypothesized that as the mode
of production changed from an agricultural one to an industrial one, a
radical reconfiguration of social customs, residential patterns, and
norms would take place, propelling the city into a state of chaos and dis-
array (Durkheim, 1951, 1979). It is this Durkheimean idea—that social
bonds erode as cities develop and that eroding bonds lead to social
disorganization—that has remained as the enduring legacy of the Chica-
go School, which subsequent sociologists and criminologists have built
upon (Massey & Denton, 1993; Pratt & Cullen, 2005; Sampson &
Groves, 1989; Wilson, 1997).

If there is a central point that social ecologists have asserted to be
nearly axiomatic, it is that crime, social disorganization, and high job-
lessness in inner cities are largely attributable to the decline of
manufacturing and industry (Sampson & Groves, 1989; Wilson, 1997).
It has been noted that this pervasive joblessness caused by a dramatic
decline in the manufacturing sector has been particularly acute for
African-American men (Sampson, 1987). In communities that are
marked by poverty, segregation, and unemployment among adult
men, one is likely to see a decline in collective supervision, residential
participation, and meaningful social networks (Sampson, Raudenbush,
& Earls, 1997). The effect of such civic insouciance is that a sense of com-
munity erodes, and a neighborhood’s capacity to regulate the behavior
of its citizens informally is compromised. What emerges in its place is
a code of the street that replaces that established sense of normative
order (Anderson, 1999).

Robert Merton’s Strain Theory viewed crime as a structurally in-
duced phenomenon. Reminiscent of a Horatio Algier novel, Merton
noted that Americans were taught that individuals ameliorate their po-
sition from abject poverty to prosperity through hard work (Lilly et al.,
2011). Merton (1938) observed that there was a tacit cultural consensus
regarding the absolute standards of achievement and accomplishment
(e.g., monetary wealth) as well as the normative means of their
procurement (e.g., hard work, perseverance). Applying Durkheim’s no-
tion of anomie, Merton argued that “the social condition in which insti-
tutionalized norms lost [lose] their power to regulate human needs and

98 P.C.H. Shon, S. Barton-Bellessa / Aggression and Violent Behavior 25 (2015) 95–103
actions” (Lilly et al., 2011, p. 65) could lead to a sense of normlessness or
crime. Merton also cautioned that the widespread desire for wealth
could promote deviance and crime.

As Merton noted, there is an inherent contradiction in the strain
model of crime, for people are free to pursue their desire for material
success and encouraged to attain it, although, sometimes, without the
structurally provided means to its achievement, which then fosters an
environment where anomie and deviance mutually reinforce one an-
other: “disassociation between culturally defined aspirations and so-
cially structured means” results in crime (Merton, 1938, p. 674).
Moreover, the cultural emphasis on success compels individuals to
adopt whatever means to achieve it, thereby mollifying the power of in-
stitutional norms to regulate behavior (Merton, 1938). It is this version
of Merton’s Strain Theory that has been extended through the evolution
of Albert Cohen, Richard Cloward, and Lloyd Ohlin’s study of gangs: they
expanded Merton’s work to explicate the understanding of illicit behav-
ior through the development of subcultures (Cohen) and the opportu-
nity (Cloward and Ohlin) to commit crime (Agnew, 1992; Lilly et al.,
2011).

The most notable extension of Strain Theory evolved with Robert
Agnew’s development of the General Strain Theory. Agnew argued
that Merton was limited in his understanding of strains that prevented
individuals from achieving culturally agreed upon goals. Agnew argued
that strain may exist in the following forms: “(1) prevent one from
achieving positively valued goals, (2) remove or threaten to remove
positively valued stimuli that one possesses, or (3) present or threaten
to present one with noxious or negatively valued stimuli” (Agnew,
1992, p. 50). The final extension of anomie as strain evolved from the
work of Messner and Rosenfeld (2012) with their development of Insti-
tutional Anomie Theory. Although Messner and Rosenfeld concurred
with Merton’s notion of culture and social structure, they argued that
he failed to account for the role of social institutions in supporting the
acceptance and achievement of societal goals and means through any
means necessary. In the United States, the pursuit of economic success
above all else has led society to support the notion that all institutions
such as family and education come secondary to monetary gain. Thus,
the ability to informally control behavior is diminished, which then
leads to increases in criminal activity (Messner & Rosenfeld, 2012).

Process-based explanations of crime point the causal lens at other
macro-level factors. According to Bandura, the process of learning oc-
curs in social ways. While a multitude of authors have sought to apply
these concepts in both psychology and sociology, it is Bandura’s pro-
cesses of counterconditioning, extinction, discrimination learning,
methods of rewards, and punishment through behavioral techniques,
particularly operant conditioning, that have been applied to criminolo-
gy (Bandura, n.d.; Bandura, 1971). The incorporation of psychological
principles allowed researchers to combine both micro- (individual)
and macro- (environment) level explanations. These behavioral thera-
py techniques in Bandura’s “social learning” theory have been expanded
into criminology by Burgess and Akers (1966) through their develop-
ment of Social Learning Theory which is a reformulation of Sutherland’s
Differential Association theory.

Sutherland, emphasizing the sociological processes at work, main-
tained that criminal behavior is learned, along with specific direction
of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes, in interaction with
others in intimate personal groups, that a person becomes delinquent
due to excess definitions favorable to law violation over unfavorable
ones (Sutherland & Cressey, 1966). His theory, however, failed to ac-
count for how the learning occurred other than through the process of
imitation (Akers & Sellers, 2013). Burgess and Akers’ Social Learning
Theory retains Sutherland’s principal ideas while adding how behavior
is acquired, persists, and desists through behavioral mechanisms (oper-
ant conditioning). Akers states that approving definitions are developed
through imitation and differential reinforcement, and make the behav-
ior morally desirable while neutralizing definitions excuse or justify a
crime (Burgess & Akers, 1966).
In addition to the Chicago School theorists, control theorists have
reintroduced Durkheim’s ideas. Unlike previous efforts to explain
crime as a function of the environment and the numerous influences
on persons (i.e., rule-breaking), control theories seek to explain why in-
dividuals conform to societal norms. Extending Durkheim’s notion of
social solidarity and social integration, the essence of the argument is
that crime and deviance may result unless social solidarity is preserved
and maintained (Lilly et al., 2011). Simply put, individuals develop the
concept of primary self through intimate and frequent associations
with significant others. Furthermore, communities reflecting the most
distance from one another were prone to increased levels of crime. Bor-
rowing from these traditions, control theorists proposed that conformi-
ty could be found in acceptance of rules and regulations (Reiss, 1951);
through family controls (Nye, 1958); factors that contained behaviors
internally or externally (Reckless, 1967); and through techniques of
neutralization used to justify behavior (Sykes & Matza, 1957). Despite
the various forms of control …