A general test of self-control theory: has its importance been exaggerated?

Self-control theory has been tested for 2 decades. However, mixed results and measurement problems have made it difficult to ascertain its true utility. This study addresses recent concerns and includes variables such as risk, consequences, criminal opportunity, an interaction term, and bond controls in one complete test. It also addresses self-control's ability to explain different forms of crime and whether the support that it has garnered has been exaggerated. Results of both cross-sectional and semilongitudinal tests indicate that self-control significantly predicts a higher probability of involvement in property and drug crime but is virtually silent in its ability to explain violence. Furthermore, it can be tentatively stated that support for the theory wanes over time. Finally, neglected concepts such as opportunity, risk, consequences, and bond controls may be important to the theory's ability to explain crime, and further negligence of these concepts may hamper a true understanding of its impact.