South Suburban College of Cook County Theories of Crime Literature Review In writing the literature review, the purpose is to convey to the reader what kno

South Suburban College of Cook County Theories of Crime Literature Review In writing the literature review, the purpose is to convey to the reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. The literature review must be defined by a guiding concept. It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries*

Each student must provide a literature review of relevant research on Hirschi and Gottfredson’s General Theory of Crime (Self-control theory). The following 2 articles MUST be incorporated into your review. You may choose one additional scholarly article using databases (Sage, Proquest, SocIndex):

Article #1: Sexual Harassment Victimization During Emerging Adulthood
Article #2: Self-control and perceived behavioral control: An examination of college student drinking
(will attach below)

Literature Review Guidelines:

The literature review should be 5 pages in length and include an APA title and references page (7 total pages).
Minimum of 3 scholarly sources must be included. I will provide 2 of the sources to be used and you will research the last one using databases.
Paper structure:
Intro paragraph that clearly explains the theory and your ‘guiding concept’ (narrow scope) ; clear thesis included
Review which makes it clear that you have read, evaluated and analyzed the research articles, and relationships and/or gaps between the literature are identified and articulated.
Succinct concluding statements which summarize the review in its entirety.
You will use a lot of paraphrasing in this paper. Always cite the author (in-text or parenthetical) when you paraphrase them. See the Orientation for more help on this.
No more than 5 one-sentence direct quotes can be used in this paper.
Use APA guidelines for formatting and referencing.
Demonstrate grade-level writing conventions Self-Control and Perceived
Behavioral Control: An
Examination of College
Student Drinking
Scott E. Wolfe
George E. Higgins
University of Louisville
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s self-control theory (1990) has been demonstrated to be
a valid predictor of behaviors analogous to crime, such as alcohol use. However,
research has also supported the contention that an individual’s level of self-control is difficult to change due to its relative stability over time. For this reason, the
present study examines the research question: does perceived behavioral control
moderate the link that self-control has with alcohol consumption, or is the link
additive? PBC can be changed and can be the focus of policy. Using a nonrandom
prospective sample of college students, this study found evidence that there is an
additive effect rather than a moderating effect between self-control and perceived
behavioral control on alcohol use. Policy implications are discussed.
Drinking alcohol is common among college students and
a cause for concern. Drinking alcohol, particularly in the form of
binge drinking, has the potential to become abusive (Wechsler, Lee,
Nelson, & Kuo, 2002). The literature concerning the consumption
of alcohol and its associated problems is well developed (Hingson,
Heeren, Winter, & Wechsler, 2005). However, less is known about
the theoretical antecedents of college students’ alcohol drinking
behavior.
Criminological theories have not only been used to explain
crime, but also such behaviors as alcohol consumption. Gottfredson
and Hirschi’s (1990) self-control theory proposes that when parents
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Scott E. Wolfe
or George E. Higgins, University of Louisville, Department of Justice Administration,
Louisville, KY 40292; Email: gehigg01@gwise.louisville.edu.
© Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2008, 4(1)
WOLFE AND HIGGINS
109
do not perform or inconsistently perform their parenting tasks (i.e.,
emotional attachment, monitoring of behavior, analyzing of behavior, and non-corporal discipline of behavior) their child is likely to
develop lower self-control levels. Hirschi (2004) defines self-control
as the tendency of an individual to consider a broad range of consequences for a particular behavior. A number of studies have demonstrated an association between an individual’s level of self-control
and his or her frequency of drinking alcohol (Arneklev, Grasmick, &
Tittle, 1993; Gibbs & Giever, 1995; LaGrange & Silverman, 1999;
Piquero, Gibson, & Tibbetts, 2002; Pratt & Cullen, 2000; Sorenson &
Brownfield, 1995; Tibbetts & Whittimore, 2002; Winfree & Bernat,
1998). Ultimately, individuals with lower levels of self-control are
attracted to drinking alcohol with greater regularity.
Social psychologists have presented theories to better understand alcohol consumption. One theory is Ajzen’s (1991) Theory
of Planned Behavior (TPB), which assumes that individuals choose
their particular behaviors (i.e., behavior is under volitional control).
To make this choice, an individual’s attitudes, subjective norms, and
perceived behavioral controls (PBC) influence the individual’s intentions to perform a behavior. Overall, meta-analyses suggest that
the TPB, as a whole, has empirical validity, especially in explaining alcohol consumption (Adams, Evans, Shreffler, & Beam, 2006;
Caballero, Carrera, Munoz, & Sanchez, 2007; Cooke & Schuz, 2007;
Godin & Kok, 1996; Johnston & White, 2003; Murgraff, Abraham,
& McDermott, 2007; Norman, Bennett, & Lewis, 1998; Norman
& Conner, 2006). However, within this literature, less attention has
been given to the specific role of PBC and alcohol consumption.
PBC is an individual’s perception that he or she has the skills and
ability necessary to perform a behavior, especially in the presence of
or in connection with self-control (Shively, 2001).
The purpose of the present study is to provide an understanding of college students’ alcohol consumption by examining the
research question: does perceived behavioral control moderate the
link that self-control has with alcohol consumption, or is the link
additive? This exploratory study is important because it provides
© Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2008, 4(1)
110
COLLEGE STUDENT DRINKING
information to help explain college student drinking. Further, the
findings from the present study will provide policy implications.
To provide this understanding, the present study will outline
issues pertaining to drinking among college students. Next, the empirical literature on self-control theory and the theory of planned behavior pertaining to alcohol consumption will be discussed. Finally,
the methods are explained, followed by the results and discussion.
College Student Drinking
Alcohol consumption is a common activity among college
students and has been an area of concern for a number of years
(Durkin, Wolfe, & Clark, 2005). Greenfield and Rogers (1999) reported that individuals between the ages of 18 to 29 represent the
largest group of individuals that drink alcohol. Wechsler, Lee, Kuo,
& Lee (2000) note that drinking among college students is on the
rise, with instances of more abusive forms of drinking (i.e., binge
drinking) also rising (Wechsler & Wuethrich, 2004). Prentice and
Miller (1993) showed evidence for pluralistic ignorance among
college students’ perceptions of alcohol consumption. Specifically,
they showed that college students, particularly males, misperceived
what the social norm on campus is in regard to drinking behavior.
Further, students felt that others on campus were more comfortable
with drinking (Prentice and Miller, 1993).
A majority of the literature on college student drinking
behavior focuses on binge drinking. For instance, this destructive behavior has been examined in the context of social learning
theory (Durkin et al., 2005), social bond theory (Durkin, Wolfe, &
Clark, 1999), and associated risks (Wechsler, Davenport, Dowdall,
Moeykens, & Castillo, 1994; Wechsler et al., 2000; Wechsler, Lee,
Hall, Wagenaar, & Lee, 2002; Wechsler, Moeykens, Davenport,
Castillo, & Hansen, 1995). While studying heavy episodic drinking
among college students is important, less attention has been given to
occasional alcohol consumption.
Alcohol consumption, in general, has been shown to place
students at risk for greater health and social problems. Wechsler et
© Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2008, 4(1)
WOLFE AND HIGGINS
111
al. (1994) argue that students who drink are likely to miss class, to
engage in unplanned and unsafe sexual activity, to be victims of
sexual and physical assault, to suffer unintentional injuries, and to
have high rates of criminal victimization and physical or cognitive
impairment. Hingson, Heeron, Winter, and Wechsler (2005) showed
that more than 500,000 students were unintentionally injured because of drinking and more than 600,000 were hit or assaulted by
another drinking student. Additionally, Hingson et al. (2005) reported that alcohol-related deaths between 1998 and 2001 increased 6%.
Most empirical studies focus on binge drinking; however, because
lower frequency alcohol consumption is still associated with numerous health and social problems (Wechsler et al., 1994; Wechsler et
al., 2002; Wechsler et al., 2000; Wechsler et al., 1995), the present
study will examine frequency of college student drinking episodes.
This will provide valuable information on an understudied form of
drinking behavior. Additionally, less research has focused on understanding the consumption of alcohol through the combination
of crime and social psychological theories, especially self-control
theory and PBC from the theory of planned behavior. Accordingly,
the present study attempts to explain frequency of alcohol consumption through the use of these two theories.
Self-Control Theory
One of the most popular criminological theories is Gottfredson
and Hirschi’s (1990) self-control theory (Agnew, 1995). Gottfredson
and Hirschi (1990) present self-control theory as a general theory because it attempts to explain all individual differences in the propensity to commit or refrain from committing crime. The theory covers
all crimes and analogous behavior (e.g., alcohol use) after the age of
eight and within all situations. The key component of Gottfredson
and Hirschi’s (1990) theory is the concept of self-control. Hirschi
has defined self-control as being “the tendency to consider the full
range of potential costs of a particular act” (2004, p.543). Hirschi
(2004) argues that self-control is the inhibitions an individual has
against committing criminal or delinquent acts. These inhibitions
(self-control) are seen as elements from social control theory: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. They contend that
© Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2008, 4(1)
112
COLLEGE STUDENT DRINKING
individuals with low self-control can be characterized as immediate gratification seekers, shortsighted, impulsive, insensitive, and
as having a preference for easy, physical (rather than mental), and
exciting tasks. These characteristics allow an individual to be “relatively free of the intimate attachments, the aspirations, and moral
beliefs that bind most people to a life within the law” (Hirschi, 2002,
p.xxi). In other words, low self-control is due to failed social bonds
that would have created a “self-imposed physical restraint” (Hirschi,
2004, p.544), resulting in an individual who is freer to commit crime
and analogous acts.
According to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), the above
characteristics of low self-control are instilled in an individual
through inconsistent and ineffective parenting in terms of nurturance, discipline, and training. This type of parenting allows the
child to go unpunished for bad behavior and deviant acts, resulting in characteristics of low self-control that persist into adulthood.
Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) posit that the level of self-control
is time-stable and will change little from childhood to adulthood.
Several longitudinal studies have shown that self-control is a relatively stable variable over time (Arneklev, Cochran, & Gainey,
1998; Turner & Piquero, 2002).
Low self-control can manifest itself in a number of ways
(Gibbs & Giever, 1995). Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) originally
used low self-control to explain criminal behavior. Many researchers
have attempted to examine the role of low self-control in the commission of criminal acts, and most have shown it to be an important
variable in explaining crime (Pratt & Cullen, 2000). Gottfredson and
Hirschi (1990) define crime as an act of force or fraud undertaken
in pursuit of self-interest. Criminal behavior is associated with low
self-control since they share common characteristics. Crimes offer
immediate gratification, are easy to perform, and are risky and exciting (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990).
Low self-control can also manifest itself in acts that are analogous to criminal behavior, including doing illegal drugs, drinking
alcohol, cheating in school, and gambling (Gottfredson & Hirschi,
1990). These types of acts appeal to an individual with low self-con-
© Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2008, 4(1)
WOLFE AND HIGGINS
113
trol for the same reasons as criminal behavior. In a recent study of
self-control and substance use, Chapple, Hope, and Whiteford (2005)
found that self-control had a direct effect on mediating the relationship between parenting variables and adolescent substance use.
Recently, attention has been given to identifying determinates
of alcohol use through the use of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990)
theory. Low self-control has been found to be an important contributor in explaining alcohol use in a number of studies (Arneklev,
Grasmick, & Tittle, 1993; Gibbs & Giever, 1995; LaGrange &
Silverman, 1999; Piquero, Gibson, & Tibbetts, 2002; Pratt & Cullen,
2000; Sorenson & Brownfield, 1995; Tibbetts & Whittimore, 2002;
Winfree & Bernat, 1998).
Recently, researchers have examined the connection between
self-control, desire for self-control, and behavior. In particular, Tittle,
Ward, and Grasmick (2004) argued that there is a possible missing
measure from Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) theory—desire for
control. They argued that an individual’s interest in controlling their
behavior was central to their theory behavior. To clarify this position
with self-control theory, Tittle et al. (2004) made the distinction between self-control (i.e., the capacity for self-control) and the desire
for self-control. They stated:
Some people may have a strong capacity for self-control
but may not always want to exercise it, while others may
have weak self-control ability but have such a keen interest in controlling their deviant impulses that they end up
conforming. (p. 146)
This view allowed them to theorize the connection between capacity
for self-control, desire for self-control, and behavior. Specifically,
those individuals with little desire for self-control and capacity
for self-control are more likely to be prone to criminal behavior.
Whereas, individuals with high levels of capacity for self-control
and high levels of desire for self-control are less likely to offend.
These individuals are more likely to conform to conventional society. Tittle et al. (2004) used a community sample to show that capacity for self-control and desire for self-control interact with criminal
© Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2008, 4(1)
114
COLLEGE STUDENT DRINKING
behavior. Further, because they assumed that capacity for self-control was stable, they showed that this interaction is contingent on an
individual’s level of desire for control.
Recently, Cochran, Aleksa, and Chamlin (2006) used a sample of college students to reexamine this perspective. They showed
that capacity for self-control and desire for self-control has independent effects on academic dishonesty. Further, Cochran et al.
(2006) showed that capacity for self-control and desire for selfcontrol interacted, revealing that the interaction was contingent on
the desire for self-control. While these studies have illuminated the
issue that differences in capacity and desire for self-control exist,
they have taken for granted that the individual perceives or sees control over the behavior. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argued that
an individual with lower levels of self-control may not recognize
the consequences of their actions. Because Tittle et al. (2004) and
Cochran et al.’s (2006) conceptions of desire for self-control are
related to consequences, individuals with low self-control may not
recognize this because they are unlikely to take the time. Higgins
and Ricketts (2004) showed that this is the case in their study of low
self-control and freedom, where freedom was measured using consequences that are similar to the measures of desire for self-control.
However, Tittle and Botchkovar (2005) showed that individuals may
be able to perceive some level of control in their behavior through
the consequences of their actions. Therefore, we would expect that
individuals with lower levels of self-control are likely to perceive
more control over their behavior. One theoretical perspective that
recognizes the importance of perception of control is the Theory of
Planned Behavior.
Theory of Planned Behavior
Ajzen developed the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) in
1991 as a re-conceptualization of Ajzen and Fishbien’s 1975 theory
of reasoned action (TRA) (Broadhead-Fearn & White, 2006). Ajzen
(1991) proposed four components to the TPB: attitudes (i.e., the
positive or negative evaluations of a behavior), subjective norms
(i.e., the perceptions of the social influences to perform or not per-
© Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2008, 4(1)
WOLFE AND HIGGINS
115
form a behavior), perceived behavioral control (PBC) (i.e., the perceptions that an individual has that they have the skills and ability to
perform a behavior), and behavioral intentions (i.e., an individual’s
readiness to perform a behavior). The most significant adaptation
from the TRA was the addition of PBC to allow for the prediction
of behaviors (Broadhead-Fearn & White, 2006). Thus, the TPB provides instruction on the development of PBC.
The TPB has a complex causal logic. That is, attitudes, subjective norms, and PBC are designed to predict behavioral intentions. Behavioral intentions are hypothesized to be the direct antecedent to behavior. However, PBC is also hypothesized to be the direct antecedent to behavior. To date, a number of studies have found
support for the theory of planned behavior in explaining such diverse activities as rule-abiding in homeless shelters and dental floss
usage (Broadhead-Fearn & White, 2006; Lavin & Groarke, 2005,
respectively). A meta-analysis by Armitage and Conner (2001) was
conducted and found strong support for TPB. They concluded that
TPB accounted for 27% of the variance in behavior and 39% of the
variance in intentions. Attitudes, subjective norms, and PBC were
found to account for significantly more of the variance than intentions or self-predictions. Specifically, PBC accounted for 27% of
the variance across all behaviors (Armitage & Conner, 2001). With
respect to the current study, a review of the literature has demonstrated that TPB is important in understanding alcohol consumption
(Armitage, Conner, Loach, & Willets, 1999; Higgins & Marcum,
2005; McMillian & Conner, 2003; Thomsen & Rekve, 2006); however a complete test of the causal logic is beyond the scope of the
present study. Our interest is in the role of PBC.1
According to Ajzen (2002), PBC is used to deal with situations where people do not have complete volitional control (i.e.,
behavior with outside influences) over the particular behavior being
examined. An example of a behavior that is not completely under
the control of an individual is alcohol consumption. While the initial
decision to engage in this behavior is often under complete control
of the person, sometimes (i.e., in the case of alcoholism or low selfcontrol) it is not under their complete volition. However, PBC is the
© Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2008, 4(1)
116
COLLEGE STUDENT DRINKING
only component of TPB that can directly lead to the performance of
a behavior without intention. Several researchers have shown some
support for the connection between PBC and behaviors such alcohol use (Conner & McMillian, 1999; Courneya, Bobick, & Schinke,
1999; Godin et al., 1996; Netemeyer, Burton, & Johnston, 1991;
Sheeran & Orbell, 2000).
Conner, Warren, Close, and Sparks (1999) used the TPB to
explain alcohol consumption in three prospective samples of college
students. The researchers showed that attitudes, subjective norms,
and PBC explained between 28% and 40% of the variance in intentions to consume alcohol. However, another study using the theory
of reasoned action (Fishbein, 1967) demonstrated that subjective
norms, previous behavior, and PBC were not important predictors of
students’ intentions to drink (Trafimow, 1996).
Self-Control Theory and Perceived
Behavioral Control
On one hand, Ajzen (1991) argued that the TPB is a motivational theory that could accommodate any other measure. Some
studies have shown that TPB partially mediates the effect of personality measures (Armitage, Norman, & Conner, 2002; Bamberg,
Ajzen, & Schmidt, 2003; Courneya et al., 1999; McMillian, Higgins,
& Conner, 2005). On the other hand, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s
(1990) view that, aside from self-control, the only measures that are
necessary are an individuals’ perceptions of opportunity. However,
Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argued that opportunities are ever
present and there was little need to examine them empirically in
their studies (see Gibbs, Giever, & Higgins, 2003, for a complete
argument). To examine these differ…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment