Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Low Self-Control, Deviant Peer Associations, and Juvenile Cyberdeviance

  • Published:
American Journal of Criminal Justice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) general theory of crime and Akers’ (1998) social learning theory have received strong empirical support for explaining crime in both the physical and cyberworlds. Most of the studies examining cybercrime, however, have only used college samples. In addition, the evidence on the interaction between low self-control and deviant peer associations is mixed. Therefore, this study examined whether low self-control and deviant peer associations explained various forms of cyberdeviance in a youth sample. We also tested whether associating with deviant peers mediated the effect of low self-control on cyberdeviance as well as whether it conditioned the effect. Low self-control and deviant peer associations were found to be related to cyberdeviance in general, as well as piracy, harassment, online pornography, and hacking specifically. Deviant peer associations both mediated and exacerbated the effect of low self-control on general cyberdeviance, though these interactions were not found for the five cyberdeviant types examined.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We focused on the work of Higgins (2007) and Gibson et al. (2010) because they examined the construct validity of the original Grasmick et al. scale with four options ranging from strongly agree to strong disagree. Piquero, MacIntosh, and Hickman (2000) tested a revised version of the Grasmick et al. scale that had five options measuring how frequent someone acted in that fashion.

  2. Pirating media, pirating software, and viewing offensive sexual materials online were measured with the following three items respectively: 1) knowingly used, made, or gave to another person “pirated” media (music, television show, or movie); 2) knowingly used, made, or gave to another person a “pirated” copy of commercially-sold computer software; 3) looked at pornographic, obscene, or offensive materials online. Peer harassment was computed by taking the average of the standardized scores for the following four measures (alpha = .919): 1) posted or sent a message about someone for other people to see that made that person feel bad; 2) posted or sent a message about someone for other people to see that made that person feel threatened or worried; 3) sent a message to someone via e-mail or instant message that made that person feel threatened or worried; and 4) sent a message to someone via e-mail or instant message that made that person feel bad. Peer computer hacking was created by averaging the standardized scores for the following three items (alpha = .832): 1) tried to guess another’s password to get into his/her computer account or files; 2) accessed another’s computer account or files without his/her knowledge or permission just to look at the information or files; and 3) added, deleted, changed or printed any information in another’s computer files without the owner’s knowledge or permission.

  3. There are two statistically significant differences (Paternoster et al., 1998) between the three self-control measures in Model 2. First, the Gibson measure had a statistically significant stronger effect on cyberdeviance (b = .009; std. error = .001). Second, a statistically significant mediation effect is found in Model 2 when using the traditional Grasmick et al. scale and the Gibson scale, but not the Higgins scale. The standard error for low self-control using the Higgins scale is .002 rather than .001 as is found for the other two measurements.

  4. In order to further verify this conclusion, a linear regression was conducted with peer deviance as the dependent variable (results not shown). This model indicated that low self-control, spending more time online for non-school related reasons, computer skill, and lower report card grades all increased the association with delinquent others.

  5. Although there were no statistically significant differences between the three different measures of low self-control within the two subgroups, the Gibson et al. measure indicated a conditioning effect (z = −3.13), congruent with that of the unstandardized scale. The Higgins measure had no such effect (z = −1.58), though this was because of the larger standard errors.

  6. We dichotomized the components because of heavy skew and little variation. Most students did not commit these offenses or performed them at lower levels (see descriptives Table 1). Therefore, we dichotomized software piracy, pornography, harassment, and computer hacking (0 = no; 1 = yes) in order to examine whether self-control predicted the probability of committing these acts. Media piracy (mean = 1.29; std. dev. = 2.05) was a partial exception to the trend, as 55.9% of the sample did not engage in this offense within the last year. Another 16.8% stated that they had pirated media once or twice in the last year. This total (72.7%) is similar to the percentages of students who had not committed any of the other offenses; thus we dichotomized media piracy based on students who engaged in piracy less than twice in the last 12 months (0) and those who committed it more often (1).

  7. Z-tests indicate that there were no significant differences in the abilities of the Grasmick et al., Higgins, and Gibson scales in predicting the five types of cyberdeviance.

  8. Since the individual peer deviance measures were five-point ordinal measures, we could not partition the models by medians. Instead, we partitioned on whether or not the person had deviant peer associations for that specific item (i.e. low = 0; high = all other options).

References

  • Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 (pp. 37–76). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akers, R. L., & Lee, G. (1996). A longitudinal test of social learning theory: Adolescent smoking. Journal of Drug Issues, 26, 317–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bocij, P. (2004). Cyberstalking: Harassment in the internet age and how to protect your family. Westport: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boeringer, S., Shehan, C. L., & Akers, R. L. (1991). Social contexts and sexual learning in sexual coercion and aggression: Assessing the contribution of fraternity membership. Family Relations, 40, 558–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bossler, A. M., & Burruss, G. W. (2010). The general theory of crime and computer hacking: Low self-control hackers? In T. J. Holt & B. Schell (Eds.), Corporate hacking and technology-driven crime: Social dynamics and implications (pp. 57–81). Hershey: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bossler, A. M., & Holt, T. J. (2010). The effect of self-control on victimization in the cyberworld. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 227–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brownfield, D., & Sorenson, A. (1993). Self-control and juvenile delinquency: Theoretical issues and an empirical assessment of selected elements of a general theory of crime. Deviant Behavior, 14, 243–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buzzell, B., Foss, D., & Middleton, Z. (2006). Explaining use of online pornography: A test of self-control theory and opportunities for deviance. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 13, 96–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapple, C. L. (2005). Self-control, peer relations, and delinquency. Justice Quarterly, 22, 89–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLisi, M., & Vaughn, M. (2008). The Gottfredson-Hirschi critiques revisited: Reconciling self-control theory, criminal careers, and career criminals. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52, 520–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMarco, H. (2003). The electronic cloak: Secret sexual deviance in cybersociety. In Y. Jewkes (Ed.), Dot.cons: Crime, deviance, and identity on the internet (pp. 53–67). Portland: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edleman, B. (2009). Red light states: Who buys online adult entertainment? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23, 209–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, T. D., Cullen, F. T., Burton, V. S., Jr., Dunaway, R. G., & Benson, M. L. (1997). The social consequences of self-control: Testing the general theory of crime. Criminology, 35, 475–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finn, J. (2004). A survey of online harassment at a university campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 468–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furnell, S. (2002). Cybercrime: Vandalizing the information society. Boston: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. L., Ward, J. T., Wright, J. P., Beaver, K. M., & Delisi, M. (2010). Where does gender fit in the measurement of self-control? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 883–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C., & Wright, J. (2001). Low self-control and coworker delinquency: A research note. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 483–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gopal, R., Sanders, G. L., Bhattacharjee, S., Agrawal, M., & Wagner, S. (2004). A behavioral model of digital music piracy. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 14, 89–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, M. R. (2006). The empirical status of control theory in criminology. In F. Cullen, J. P. Wright, & K. R. Blevins (Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory (pp. 77–100). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1987). The methodological adequacy of longitudinal research on crime. Criminology, 25, 581–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursik, R. J., Jr., & 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, 5–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, G. E. (2005). Can low self-control help with the understanding of the software piracy problem? Deviant Behavior, 26, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, G. E. (2006). Gender differences in software piracy: The mediating roles of self-control theory and social learning theory. Journal of Economic Crime Management, 4, 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, G. E. (2007). Examining the original Grasmick scale: A Rasch model approach. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 157–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, G. E., Fell, B. D., & Wilson, A. L. (2006). Digital piracy: Assessing the contributions of an integrated self-control theory and social learning theory using structural equation modeling. Criminal Justice Studies, 19, 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, G. E., Fell, B. D., & Wilson, A. L. (2007). Low self-control and social learning in understanding students’ intentions to pirate movies in the United States. Social Science Computer Review, 25, 339–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, G. E., & Makin, D. A. (2004a). Does social learning theory condition the effects of low self-control on college students’ software piracy. Journal of Economic Crime Management, 2, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, G. E., & Makin, D. A. (2004b). Self-control, deviant peers, and software piracy. Psychological Reports, 95, 921–931.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, G. E., & Wilson, A. L. (2006). Low self-control, moral beliefs, and social learning theory in university students’ intentions to pirate software. Security Journal, 19, 75–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, G. E., Wolfe, S. E., & Marcum, C. D. (2008). Digital piracy: An examination of three measurements of self-control. Deviant Behavior, 29, 440–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinduja, S. (2001). Correlates of internet software piracy. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 17, 369–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinduja, S., & Ingram, J. R. (2008). Self-control and ethical beliefs on the social learning of intellectual property theft. Western Criminology Review, 9, 52–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29, 129–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2009). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt, T. J. (2007). Subcultural evolution? Examining the influence of on- and off-line experiences on deviant subcultures. Deviant Behavior, 28, 171–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt, T. J., & Bossler, A. M. (2009). Examining the applicability of lifestyle-routine activities theory for cybercrime victimization. Deviant Behavior, 30, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt, T. J., Burruss, G. W., Bossler, A. M. (2010). Social learning and cyber deviance: Examining the importance of a full social learning model in the virtual world. Journal of Crime and Justice 33, page numbers not assigned yet

  • Ingram, J. R., & Hinduja, S. (2008). Neutralizing music piracy: An empirical examination. Deviant Behavior, 29, 334–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, T., & Taylor, P. (1998). A sociology of hackers. The Sociological Review, 46, 757–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krohn, M. D. (1999). Social learning theory: The continuing development of a perspective. Theoretical Criminology, 3, 462–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, F. S. (2000). Obscene profits: The entrepreneurs of pornography in the cyber age. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, G., Akers, R. L., & Borg, M. J. (2004). Social learning and structural factors in adolescent substance use. Western Criminology Review, 5, 17–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longshore, D., Chang, E., Hsieh, S., & Messina, N. (2004). Self-control and social bonds: A combined control perspective on deviance. Crime & Delinquency, 50, 542–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, W. A., & Windle, M. (2002). Gender, self-control, and informal control in adolescence: A test of three models of the continuity of delinquent behavior. Youth and Society, 33, 479–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 significance. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 46, 353–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon, B., McCluskey, J. D., & McCluskey, C. P. (2010). A general theory of crime and computer crime: An empirical test. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 767–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, R. G., & Higgins, G. E. (2010). Criminological theory in the digital age: The case of social learning theory and digital piracy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 470–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piquero, A. R., MacIntosh, R., & Hickman, M. (2000). Does self-control affect survey response? Applying exploratory, confirmatory, and item response theory analysis to Grasmick et al.’s self-control scale. Criminology, 38, 897–929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Sellers, C. S., Winfree, L. T., Madensen, T., Daigle, L. E., et al. (2009). The empirical status of social learning theory: A meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 27, 765–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, M. K. (2001). A social learning theory and moral disengagement analysis of criminal computer behavior: An exploratory study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Manitoba University, Canada

  • Skinner, W. F., & Fream, A. M. (1997). A social learning theory analysis of computer crime among college students. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 495–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, R. W., Fritsch, E. J., Liederbach, J., & Holt, T. J. (2010). Digital crime and digital terrorism (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tittle, C. R., Ward, D. A., & Grasmick, H. G. (2003). Gender, age, and crime/deviance: A challenge to self-control theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40, 426–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wall, D. S. (2001). Cybercrimes and the internet. In D. S. Wall (Ed.), Crime and the internet (pp. 1–17). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warr, M. (2002). Companions in crime: The social aspects of criminal conduct. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Winfree, L. T., Taylor, T. J., He, N., & Esbensen, F. (2006). Self-control and variability over time: Multivariate results using a 5-year, multisite panel of youths. Crime and Delinquency, 52, 253–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolack, J., Mitchell, K., & Finkelhor, D. (2006). Online victimization of youth: 5 years later. Washington: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, S. E., & Higgins, G. E. (2009). Explaining deviant peer associations: An examination of low self-control, ethical predispositions, definitions, and digital piracy. Western Criminology Review, 10, 43–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yar, M. (2005). Computer hacking: Just another case of juvenile delinquency? The Howard Journal, 44, 387–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, 434 Baker Hall, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

    Thomas J. Holt

  2. Justice Studies Program, Department of Political Science, Georgia Southern University, P.O. Box 8101, Statesboro, GA, 30460, USA

    Adam M. Bossler

  3. Correctional & Juvenile Justice Services, Eastern Kentucky University, 521 Lancaster Avenue, Stratton 110, Richmond, KY, 40475, USA

    David C. May

Authors
  1. Thomas J. Holt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adam M. Bossler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David C. May
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas J. Holt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Holt, T.J., Bossler, A.M. & May, D.C. Low Self-Control, Deviant Peer Associations, and Juvenile Cyberdeviance. Am J Crim Just 37, 378–395 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-011-9117-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-011-9117-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation