Briar, Scott, and Irving Piliavin: Delinquency, Commitment, and Stake in Conformity

Prior to the 1950s, positivist theories explaining the causes of crime centered on motivations that led youths into antisocial and delinquent behavior. Particular focus was given to the influence of subcultural, psychoanalytical, and frustration-aggression theories. Central to these premises was [Page 119]the question, why do individuals commit crime? In their seminal work, Scott Briar and Irving Piliavin criticized the efficacy of this approach and argued that by focusing solely on motivational factors researchers were missing a key component to explain behavior. They proposed that social control theories, which sought to explain why an individual would not commit an offense, better described both delinquent and non-delinquent involvement. They argued the combination of youths’ commitment to conformity (stakes in conformity) and their environment directly influenced their decision-making process. More specifically the authors postulated that boys with high stakes in conformity were least likely to commit delinquent acts than those youths with the lowest level of commitment to conform.

Briar and Piliavin later refined their theory to include a rational calculative approach to decision making referred to as a rewards-cost model of delinquency. Within this model, the authors argued that in any given circumstance, youths weigh the rewards of their activities over the costs and choose the behavior that results in the most positive outcome. For example, even those individuals with the strongest commitments to their families, peers, and social institutions may be tempted to “engage in criminal acts, and they may perform such acts when their commitments do not appear to be threatened (for example, under conditions of low visibility) or when the motives to deviate are very strong” (p. 39). The fear of reprisal or punishments and the deprivations associated with those punishments, along with what they refer to as a “consistent self-image” to sustain their important relationships, is as important in preserving their current and future status as any other relationship.

The extension of social control theories to include how both “inner” and “outer” controls (commitment to conformity) combine to influence an individual's decision-making process summarizes Briar and Piliavin's special contribution to criminology. Their ideas were subsequently broadened by Travis Hirschi in his social bonding theory and more recently with the evolution of life-course perspectives and theories of desistance.

The following discussion is divided into the conceptual framework of the theory, critiques of motivational theories, stakes in conformity defined, and finally a conclusion. This entry provides the reader with an understanding of Briar and Piliavin's work and of how the combination of commitment to conformity and environment induces even the most law-abiding citizen to commit crime.