Control Balance Theory

by

Theodore R. Curry

• LAST REVIEWED: 05 May 2017
• LAST MODIFIED: 27 June 2018
• DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195396607-0103

Introduction

Control balance is an original theory of deviant behavior developed by Charles R. Tittle, who presented the initial statement of the theory in his book, Control Balance: Toward a General Theory of Deviance (Tittle 1995, cited under Initial Statement of the Theory). Following its 1995 publication, the book received distinguished scholarship awards from both the American Sociological Association and the American Society of Criminology. Tittle’s control balance theory also became the focus of scholarly conference sessions and the subject of several book reviews (Savelsberg 1996, cited under Theoretical Development), and it was featured in two exchanges between Tittle and critics of the theory in the journal Theoretical Criminology (Braithwaite 1997 and Tittle 1997, cited under Theoretical Development). In the ten years following its publication, a dozen journal articles empirically tested various hypotheses and other features of the theory, and Tittle published a major revision of the theory in 2004 (Tittle 2004, cited under Theoretical Development). In spite of this initial flurry of debate, discussion, and research, attention to the theory waned between 2005 and 2010, with only three new empirical pieces testing control balance theory. The complexity of control balance theory, combined with the need for primary data to measure and test hypotheses, may account for this development. However, the period of 2014–2018 witnessed a new spate of research, much of it focused on stalking behavior. Control balance theory is predicated on the idea of control, which is (1) the degree to which others and a person’s surroundings can limit an individual’s behavioral options and (2) the extent to which an individual can escape from these controls and exercise such controls over others. The ratio of controls exercised to controls experienced constitutes the control ratio, which is the central cause of deviance in the theory. The key assertion of control balance theory is that control ratio imbalances will be associated with deviance because they will lead to an imbalance between motivation toward deviance and constraints on deviance behavior. Control imbalances can be of two types: (1) control deficits, which occur when the control that individuals can exercise is exceeded by the amount of control to which they are subject, and (2) control surpluses, which indicate that the controls that individuals can exercise surpass the controls they experience. Importantly, in this initial statement of the theory, control deficits are hypothesized to impact only “repressive” types of deviance (similar to street crime), whereas control surpluses should affect only “autonomous” deviance (analogous to white-collar crime and elite deviance). As control ratios approach a balanced point, in which controls exercised and controls experienced are equal, deviance becomes less likely, because deviant motivation and constraints on deviance will be balanced. Direct tests of control balance theory, however, showed that both control deficits and control surpluses tended to be associated with deviance, regardless of whether it was repressive or autonomous. Tests that examined contingent or causal chain relationships between control ratios and other theoretical variables also tended to be supportive and, again, generally without regard to the type of deviance in question. In response to empirical findings and published critical appraisals, Charles R. Tittle removes the typology of repressive and autonomous deviance in his 2004 revision. In its place, he develops the concept of the “control balance desirability” of deviance, which represents how effective a given deviant act is at improving a control ratio imbalance and how impersonal it is. Deviance that requires less direct involvement from actors and that (if successfully completed) is likely to result in substantial improvements to a control imbalance is seen as having greater control balance desirability. However, to date, no research testing the revised theory has been published.

Initial Statement of the Theory

Control balance theory endeavors to account for variation in individual deviance, as well as the seriousness of these actions. Unlike many other theories, control balance seeks to explain not only adolescent delinquency and other street-crime types of deviance, but also the deviance of powerful actors, often called white-collar crime or elite deviance. In addition, control balance theory also addresses variation in deviance across population aggregates, but this aspect of the theory has received little attention. Tittle 1995 provides a new definition of deviant behavior and an accompanying typology by which different deviant acts can be categorized according to whether they are repressive or autonomous, as well as their seriousness within these types. Deviance is portrayed as instrumental behavior that is employed in an effort to improve the actor’s control ratio. The crux of the theory is that deviance will increase as control ratios become increasingly imbalanced. This results from the effect of control ratios on other causal process variables, particularly deviant motivation and constraints on deviant acts. In this original formulation of the theory, control ratio imbalances are also theorized to affect the seriousness of the deviance that individuals perform, a provision that is removed in Tittle 2004, a major revision (cited under Major Revision) and replaced by the idea of “control balance desirability.”

• Tittle, Charles R. 1995. Control balance: Toward a general theory of deviance. Boulder, CO: Westview.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Control balancing is complex but centers on the interplay between deviant motivation and constraint, both of which stem from control ratios. Sufficiently motivated individuals will engage in deviance within a specific zone of Tittle’s deviance typology, depending on their control ratio. Deviance represents a device intended to improve control ratios; the more serious the deviance, the greater the improvement.

  Find this resource:

Theoretical Development

Control balance theory is notable for the level of theoretical criticism and debate that it stimulated among scholars. Of the twenty-six research publications that focus on the theory, eleven are critiques and book reviews, including three replies or revisions from Charles R. Tittle. Criticisms largely focus on (1) Tittle’s new definition of deviance (Savelsberg 1996); (2) the typology of repressive and autonomous deviance (Braithwaite 1997, Jensen 1999); (3) Tittle’s argument for the need to replace simple theory with synthetic integrated theory (Savelsberg 1999); and (4) the challenges posed by control balance theory’s complexity (Savelsberg 1996). Tittle develops two key responses. First, while admitting it is imperfect, Tittle 1997 and Tittle 1999 defend his definition of deviance as useful, especially in relation to his theory. Second, Tittle 2004 abandons the original typology of deviance and replaces it with the notion of a deviant act’s “control balance desirability,” which is a function of the degree to which the deviant act is (1) effective at improving a control ratio imbalance and (2) impersonal. Importantly, Tittle 2004 recasts control balance theory as one of conforming and submissive actions as well as deviant behavior and modifies some concepts and relationships originally presented in Tittle 1995 (cited under Initial Statement of the Theory)—particularly notable is the greater prominence of self-control for the larger control balancing causal process. No empirical research to date examines the control balance desirability of deviance, which requires separate empirical verification.

• Braithwaite, John. 1997. Charles Tittle’s control balance and criminological theory. Theoretical Criminology 1.1 (February): 77–97.

  DOI: 10.1177/1362480697001001005Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Following the autonomy assumption, asserts that regardless of control ratio level “most people want more control” (p. 78). Would abandon typology of deviance as imprecise. Feels that submission does not improve control and is not deviant. Argues for reconceiving control balance as a theory of predation (whether repressive or autonomous). Available online for purchase or by subscription.

  Find this resource:

• Jensen, Gary F. 1999. A critique of control balance theory: Digging into details. Theoretical Criminology 3.3 (August): 339–343.

  DOI: 10.1177/1362480699003003006Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Fails to find support for hypotheses derived from control balance theory regarding gender differences in deviance (according to Tittle’s typology of deviance seriousness). Further criticizes the typology of deviance seriousness as being ambiguous. Available online for purchase or by subscription.

  Find this resource:

• Savelsberg, Joachim J. 1996. Book review: Control balance: Toward a general theory of deviance. American Journal of Sociology 102.2 (September): 620–622.

  DOI: 10.1086/230974Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Argues Tittle’s definition of deviance encompasses “too many diverse phenomena” (p. 621) and is fatally flawed for relying on reactions to behavior, which are unknown when the behavior occurs. Questions the autonomy assumption. Criticizes the theory’s complexity and asserts that more parsimonious extant theory may be more useful and practical to research. Available online for purchase or by subscription.

  Find this resource:

• Savelsberg, Joachim J. 1999. Human nature and social control in complex society: A critique of Charles Tittle’s control balance. Theoretical Criminology 3.3 (August): 331–338.

  DOI: 10.1177/1362480699003003005Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Argues that Tittle’s definition of deviance is ambiguous and neglects the dynamics of control agents. Asserts that the effect of control on deviance needs further elaboration and that the definition of control is too similar to that of power. Questions the mandate for general theory, calling it a value judgment.

  Find this resource:

• Tittle, Charles R. 1997. Thoughts stimulated by Braithwaite’s analysis of control balance theory. Theoretical Criminology 1.1 (February): 99–110.

  DOI: 10.1177/1362480697001001006Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Agrees with Braithwaite that deviance categories are inexact, but still argues that deviance seriousness is key to control balancing. Agrees that submission does not improve control and is not deviant. Feels that restricting theory to predation is too limiting. Recasts theory as one of conformity, submission, and deviance (including deviance seriousness). Available online for purchase or by subscription.

  Find this resource:

• Tittle, Charles R. 1999. Continuing the discussion of Control balance. Theoretical Criminology 3.3 (August): 344–352.

  DOI: 10.1177/1362480699003003007Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Replies to Savelsberg that (1) deviance is an ambiguous concept that nonetheless requires definition, and (2) the theory does account for relationships between control and deviance. Replies to Jensen that his hypotheses are not logically connected to the theory because deviance seriousness first requires empirical verification. Available online for purchase or by subscription.

  Find this resource:

• Tittle, Charles R. 2004. Refining control balance theory. Theoretical Criminology 8.4 (November): 395–428.

  DOI: 10.1177/1362480604046657Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Replaces typology of repressive and autonomous deviance with the “control balance desirability” of deviance. This reflects how impersonal and effective a deviant act is at improving a control imbalance. Different ranges of control balance desirability will be associated with different levels of control imbalances (in combination with other key variables). Discussed in greater detail in the rest of this article. Available online for purchase or by subscription.

  Find this resource:

Major Revision

Tittle 2004 (cited under Theoretical Development) now argues that control imbalances, whether surpluses or deficits, are related to all types of deviance, regardless of deviance seriousness or whether the deviance is autonomous or repressive. Moreover, the original deviance typology (Tittle 1995, cited under Initial Statement of the Theory) is merged into the idea of the control balance desirability of deviance, which refers to “(1) the likely long range effectiveness of the deviant act in question for altering a control imbalance and (2) the extent to which a given form of misbehavior requires the perpetrator to be directly and personally involved with a victim or an object that is affected by the deviance” (Tittle 2004, p. 405). Deviance that has the greatest long-term impact on control imbalances and that is most impersonal has the greatest control balance desirability and will produce the most substantial improvements to control ratios. Separate empirical research will need to assess the control balance desirability of various deviant acts and divide them into different ranges. The heart of control balancing now focuses on the general range of control balance desirability of deviant acts that individuals perform, which are predicted to be affected by control ratios (in conjunction with other causal process variables). Self-control is given greater prominence in this revision. Tittle argues that the new control balancing process will tend to operate as theorized to the extent that individuals possess high self-control, because they are better able to judge the long-range effects that a deviant act might have on their control ratios. Problems presented by the revision include a causal process that is no less complex than the original formulation, posing challenges to hypothesizing and measurement, and the need for primary data to assess the control balance desirability of deviant acts as well as to test hypotheses derived from this revision. Researchers have yet to address, either empirically or in theoretical critiques, the revised version of control balance theory.

• Tittle, Charles R. 2004. Refining control balance theory. Theoretical Criminology 8.4 (November): 395–428.

  DOI: 10.1177/1362480604046657Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Responding to critics as well as empirical findings, Tittle revises control balance theory to predict that control ratio imbalances will be associated with all types of deviance and replaces the deviance typology with the control balance desirability of deviance (which requires separate testing before hypotheses can be assessed). Available online for purchase or by subscription.

  Find this resource:

Empirical Tests

The empirical results of Tittle’s control balance theory (Tittle 1995, cited under Initial Statement of the Theory) produce a fairly consistent picture regarding the associations between control ratios and deviance. In nearly all cases, regardless of the deviant act analyzed (and whether it is repressive or autonomous according to Tittle’s typology), both control deficits and control surpluses evince positive relationships with these behaviors. However, a key innovative feature of Tittle’s original statement of control balance theory is that deviance type will determine whether control surpluses or control deficits will affect deviance. Specifically, repressive deviance will increase as control deficits intensify, and autonomous deviance will increase as control surpluses become greater. Thus, when both control deficits and surpluses are associated with, for example, the willingness to commit assault and frequency of drug use, only the results regarding control deficits support the original theory (the results for control surpluses contradict theoretical predictions). In response to such findings, as well as theoretical critiques (see Major Revision), Tittle revised control balance theory to replace the deviance typology with the concept of the “control balance desirability of deviance.” However, researchers have yet to address this new formulation of the theory. Studies that examine issues beyond the basic control ratio–deviance association tend to find that this association is stronger under specific contingencies and conditions predicted by the theory. No effort has tested control balance theory at the macro level. In addition to research findings, a number of salient methodological issues are discussed in the empirical literature. First, control ratios represent a new and innovative concept whose conceptualization requires the use of primary data for direct tests. Second, as a result, most studies used convenience samples, typically college students, which restrict a large proportion of findings to a rather limited group. Third, the curvilinear theoretical relationship between control ratios and deviance (as well as many other variables in the theory) necessitates the use of nonlinear regression to analyze results, which is highly complex, difficult to interpret, and heretofore rarely employed in criminology. Fourth, because control balance theory employs a number of variables that pertain to specific situations, many tests have employed vignettes containing scenarios in which deviance might occur to measure a respondent’s willingness to engage in such deviance, rather than measuring actual behavior.