Urkund Report - A-1937trimester4containment - Docx (d55115812)

URKUND
Urkund Analysis Result

Analysed Document: A-1937TRIMESTER4CONTAINMENT.DOCX (D55115812)
Submitted: 8/29/2019 8:07:00 PM
Submitted By: shambhavikhare.ug@nliu.ac.in
Significance: 75 %
Sources included in the report:
http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/kennedyijcjs2015vol10issue1.pdf
https://study.sagepub.com/system/files/Reckless%252C_Walter_C._-_Containment_Theory.pdf
https://dergeater.ml/reckless-containment-theory-pdf.php
Instances where selected sources appear:
36
URKUND A-1937TRIMESTER4CONTAINMENT.DOCX (D55115812)
NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY,BHOPAL
CRIMINOLOGY TRIMESTER- IV PROJECT WORK TOPIC: AN ANALYSIS OF THE CONTAINMENT

THEORY
SUBMITTED BY : SUBMITTED TO : SHAMBHAVI KHARE PROF. PK SHUKLA 2018BALLB(HONS)30
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the following project on ‘An analysis of the containment theory of Walter
C Reckless ’ has been prepared and submitted by Shambhavi Khare, who is currently in the
fourth trimester pursuing BALLB(Hons) at National Law Institute University, Bhopal in
fulfilment of Criminology Course. It is also certified that this is her original work and has not
been presented to any other university nor published in any other journal.
Date:
Signature of the Student:….…........……………………
Signature of the Supervisor:……………………………
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The completion of this project would not have been possible without the kind support and
efforts of the National Law Institute University, Bhopal and the individuals associated with it. I
would like to express my gratitude to Prof. PK Shukla for his guidance and constant support
throughout the development of the project. This project would not have been made possible
without him I would also like to thank my parents and friends for their constant co-operation,
motivation and encouragement which helped me in completion of this project.
Shambhavi Khare
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENT 4 INTRODUCTION 5 CONCEPTIONS OF THE THEORY 6

INNER CONTAINMENT 10 OUTER CONTAINMENT 11 FOUNDATION OF THIS THEORY 12
INTRODUCTION
Containment theory, though interdisciplinary in nature, is considered to be one of the earliest

control theories and it focuses
0: https://study.sagepub.com/system/files/Reckless%252C_Walter_C._-
_Containment_Theory.pdf 88%
on what stops people from engaging in crime— or precisely, what “contains” people
(contains or containment fundamentally being used in place of the term controls).
2
Reckless conducted a huge number of studies, on the behavioural patterns of nondelinquent

boys who lived in high-lawbreaking neighbourhoods. He then concluded that a good self-
concept acted as a barrier against the social and personal forces that drive some of the boys
towards delinquency. Later on, he generalized his findings into a theory called the
0: https://dergeater.ml/reckless-containment-theory-pdf.php 60%
containment theory, which maintained that there are inner and outer forces of containment
that restrain a person from committing a crime: the inner forces stem from moral and
religious principles as well as from a personal sense of right and wrong; the
outer forces come from various factors such as family members, teachers, or others who
influence the individual to some degree. The effectiveness of containment forces can be
influenced by external factors such as efficient supervision and internal factors such as a good
self-concept. Reckless’s theory also focused on “push-pull” forces as explanations of the
deviant behaviour in delinquents , including “internal” pushes such as discontent and rebellion
and “external” pulls such as delinquent connections.
As observed by Richard Dodder and Janet Long, containment theory was greatly popular in
the 1950s and 1960s and has become a staple in the sphere of criminological theory. While,
according to some scholars, the theory has gone out of vogue in recent years, containment
theory has kept its foundational place in criminological theory.
CONCEPTIONS OF THE THEORY
The initial conceptions of the theory were developed when Reckless was exploring the
inadequacies of other approaches meant to explain delinquency and crime. Early
criminological theories were
explained and
understood in terms of “pushing” and/or “pulling” individuals toward deviance (e.g.,

differential association theory was recognized as a pull theory and the subcultural theory
propounded by Albert Cohen represented
3
a combination push and pull theory). According to Reckless, the problem with these
approaches was that they failed to account for
the youth
that did not engage in delinquency in spite of being confronted with pushes and/or pulls
toward delinquent ways. This was the situation with the approach promoted by Reckless's
mentors
also in
social disorganization theory. Reckless accredited that social disorganization approaches to

the study of delinquency and crime enjoyed popularity for a generation. However, he
was of the view
that there was a fundamental oversight with this approach. He did believe
that
there was merit to social disorganization theory, Reckless claimed that social disorganization
alone was insufficient to completely address the issue of delinquency and crime. He
emphasized that the largest proportion of people in disorganized or instable areas do not
turn out to be delinquent or criminal at all. In fact, most of these people lead lives of
comparative traditionalism, which meant that social disorganization approaches, as well as
other theories relying on push and/or pull directions, needed something more if they were to
add further to
the existing explanations of crime and delinquency. It was the above
4
understanding that brought Reckless to the essential questions that gave rise to containment
theory: “Why do some people break through the reeling controls and others do not? Why do
rare cases in well-integrated society break through the lines of strong controls?” Reckless
held that it was the interaction between inner self-controls and outer social controls that
were in part responsible for whether or not an individual would engage in delinquency and
criminality. Contrary to some other theorists, Reckless thought social disorganization was not
about the stress related to social and economic pressures directly. Instead, he believed that
where social disorganization played a causal role in delinquency and crime was when social
disorganization led specifically to a breakdown in social controls. Important to his line of
reasoning was Reckless's prior observation of religious sects. Reckless's observations of
these congested and highly controlled groups contributed to and hardened his beliefs that
the community served the express purpose of external social control.
Though
0: http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/kennedyijcjs2015vol10issue1.pdf 73%
control theories, generally, assert that deviant behaviour is a replication of selfinterested

behaviour, containment theory goes onestep further by taking into account variation in
opportunities for deviance. However, unlike other control theories (e.g., social bonds, self-
control and, power-control) containment theory is not a “general theory” as it is not intended
to be applied to all variations of offenders. Reckless, specifically states that
the
containment theory is not appropriate for acts considered to be irrational or impulsive, acts
resulting from grave psychological distress, or acts of scrounging cultures or cultures defined
by begging or panhandling, or crimino-genic communities. Earlier research has found that
occurring of deviant acts within the business environment are highly rational and that the
deviant actors are far-off
from being in a state of psychological distress, also these actors are a part of an established
and accepted community of deviance. Therefore Reckless’ theory, is a good fit for exploring
issues of deviant activity within the business environment, still it cannot be applied to all
types of deviant business behaviour. Since the theory assumes a rational actor operating
within an environment of socially defined deviance, acts that could be considered to be
wrong per se (e.g., corporate violence, pollution leading to death/significant harm to the
environment) must not be studied using containment theory. Containment theory is not a
general theory of deviance, instead it focuses upon rational acts that, for some social
undesirability, would be considered normal behaviour. Containment theory explains and
5
elucidates the presence of inner (internal to the individual) and outer (originating through
one’s association with some group or culture) controls, as well as factors that push or pull an
individual towards deviant acts.
In particular, containment theory asserts that there is an order to these fundamentals, with
factors of inner containment being developed to address the onset of deviant pushes, and
factors of outer containment serving as secondary firming mechanisms and buffers against
deviant pulls. According to Reckless, we should expect to see factors of inner containment
exhibit a strong and primary influence on decision making over and above the factors of
outer containment.
DEVIANT PUSHES AND PULLS Reckless specified that factors of containment sit between the
social pulls and inner pushes that lead
up
to deviant acts. Within the business environment, this relationship can be theorized in the
following means: 1. individuals come into the business environment with a focus on goal
attainment and performance maximization - inner pushes directing their behaviour withinthe
workplace; 2. factors of inner control work to contain the individual’s desire for illicit or
immoral goal attainment/performance maximization
according to
one’s internalized standards of suitable behaviour both within and outside of the business
environment 3. factors of outer containment are established through the individual’s
interaction with the business environment, creating buffers that protect against the
development of deviant business behaviour; and 4. social pulls within the business
environment work in concert with inner pushes to weaken factors of inner andd outer
containment, freeingthe individual to engage in deviant acts. A condition that may push
a person towards a deviant act is one in which the person
feels some type of pressure to engross in deviance as a way to escape, or improve,
6
his present situation 1 . For example the individual is self- interested, the presence of any
negative situation in which the person is pushing himself towards an act which is
socially undesirable because he will see this act as a way to alleviate their existing pain. The
only thing keeping the individual from participating in the undesirable behaviour is the
presence of strong factors of inner or outer containment. Pulls are factors which “draw” an
individual away from social conformity. Despite the innate desire to engage in self-interested
behaviours, factors of containment work to direct an individual towards pro-social action,
whereas pulls work to free the individual from these factors of containment. Factors that pull
an individual into socially objectionable behaviour are events like the presence of prospects
for deviance, one’s close attachment
toor acquaintance with
antisocial peers, and the influence of deviant networks or groups. As these pulls increase in
their strength, the self-interested character of the individual will free them to follow along
with the deviant pulls. However, if factors of containment are strong, then such self-
interested behaviour can be contained. These concepts of deviant pushes and pulls
acknowledge that opportunities for specific forms of deviance are not ubiquitous throughout
society. Therefore, the influence of particular factors of inner and outer containment are
expected to vary across individuals and situations.
INNER CONTAINMENT
The
factors of inner containment embody self-imposed limits on a persons conduct which are
formed out of a recognition and internalization of pro-social norms, along with one’s
attachment to pro-social ideals. While aspects of one’s personality might have an influence
on decision-making, this influence may merely be a reflection of the way in which personality
forms the systematic development of factors of inner containment. For example, a lot has
been written about the relationship between gender and ethical decision making, and while
the evidence as a whole is mixed, a large portion of the evidence does suggest that women
are typically more ethically inclined than men 2 . However, work by Daly (1989) and Dodge
(2007) suggests that gender-based differences found in empirical tests of deviant white-collar
behaviour may represent the gender-based differential distribution of
7
opportunities, as well as the strong influence of gender-based socialization during

developmental and formative years. According to Reckless, aspects of inner containment,
such as one’s ability to avoid risk seeking behaviour, help the individual in rejecting the
deviant pushes and pulls they may experience. Reckless further states that inner
containment is in the best position to act against the pushes and pulls toward deviant acts
that one may experience. He asserts that strong factors of inner containment, in combination
with factors of outer containment, make it easier to contain deviant behaviour. This idea has
support in the literature that has tested control theories on other types of deviant behaviour,
with several authors finding that factors of inner and outer containment were significantly
related to the avoidance of delinquent behavior 3 . As the opportunity for deviance changes,
so should the influence of factors of inner containment, as individuals rely upon different
aspects of their personality to address the situations they face.
OUTER CONTAINMENT
Factors of outer containment bind the individual to some group or association that has
importance to the individual, and with which the individual has made a well informed choice
to recognize. Reckless acknowledged these factors as “buffers” established by groups
supportive of one’s pro-social behaviour. Since there are various external buffers that
originate from various sources, it is
most likely to happen
that no one factor of outer containment will show worldwide influence over an individual’s
behaviour. Notwithstanding the fact that many factors of outer containment might be
present within the business environment, one may only be expected to internalize those
factors that have certain level of importance to their detailed business role.
It might also be
possible that people will chose to adjourn these factors at instances when deviant pushes or
pulls exercise a substantial influence on their decision-making.
FOUNDATION OF THIS THEORY
This theory, propounded by Reckless has its basis in the notion of self-concept. He researched
and found out how a good self-concept is necessary to provide the youth with a
8
a protective shield and/or insulation against delinquency. A poor self-concept, on the
other hand, had the opposite effect, rendering a person prone
to delinquency. This particular observation apparently held over time, leading Reckless to
assume that good and poor self-concept is a reflection of the internalization of favourable
and unfavourable socialization and in that way, is an important internal shield against
delinquency. Similar to many theorists, Reckless also looked to the observations of others
when formulating his new explanation of delinquency and, in doing so, weaved together the
central tenets of containment theory. The work of researchers Albert J. Reiss, F. Ivan Nye, and
Fritz Redl
have been expressly mentioned by Reckless when guiding readers through the logic of
containment theory. Reiss, in his work had
discussed the predictive value of personal and social controls on delinquent behaviour in his
significant work with
the
Chicago juveniles. His observation and assessment of the different dimensions of control
were not lost on Reckless. Reckless would incorporate this understanding into his own work,
particularly the observation that personal controls were more influential than social controls
on recidivism. Also, Reiss's notion of personal controls, such as self-control, essentially
mirrored what Reckless called inner containment Nye's research further
enlightened us of the ways in which controls were important to regulating personal

behaviour. His research specifically laid down for us
9
four types of control factors that were discussed by Reckless: direct control, internalized
control, indirect control, and the availability of alternative means to goals. All
of which
had a place in restraining delinquent behaviour. Reckless stated that, according to Nye,
punishment and discipline are one of the features of direct control. Inner control is
principally self-control, and indirect control is a consequence of not wanting to
upset or
disappoint meaningful others by deviant behavior. Of course, individuals must have
a substitute
to deviant behaviour, which explains the fourth aspect of control identified by Nye. Hence,
Reckless's and Nye's explanations share similar features. Both
of them
are similar in scope in that they are only meant to explain general deviance. Nye's notion of
direct control can be equated to outer containment concept
of Reckless. Internalized control can be seen as mirroring inner containment concept of

Reckless. Reckless also relied on
Redl and Wineman's formulation of the “behaviour control system” as offering support for
containment theory. Redl's work inner psychological processes thought to be involved in
whether or not an individual would engage in delinquency and crime. Specifically, the
concepts recognized by Redl were the
10
egoand the superego.
SCOPE OF THIS THEORY
Containment theory is a general theory of crime and it explains
the wide range of behaviours between the extremes of deviancy. Reckless says that at one of
the continuum is individual pathology
including behaviours caused by factors such as mental illness and other things like
compulsions or behaviour as a result of organic brain damage. At the opposite end of the
continuum, the deviant even though considered normal in the said circumstances and would
be falling behind
those behaviours that containment theory means to explain. At this extreme, individuals
have been socialized by family or some affiliate or marginalized section or group to act as
social deviants.
Lilly, Cullen and Ball, 2007 2 Loe, Ferrell & Mansfield, 2000; Piquero & Moffett, 2014. 3 Gibson
& Wright, 2001; Lawrence, 1985; Jensen, 1973.
11
Hit and source - focused comparison, Side by Side:
Left side: As student entered the text in the submitted document.

Right side: As the text appears in the source.
Instances from: http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/kennedyijcjs2015vol10issue1.pdf
11 73% 11: http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/

kennedyijcjs2015vol10issue1.pdf 73%
control theories, generally, assert that deviant behaviour is a
replication of selfinterested behaviour, containment theory goes control theories, in general, assert that deviant behavior is a
onestep further by taking into account variation in opportunities reflection of self- interested behavior, containment theory goes
for deviance. However, unlike other control theories (e.g., social one-step further by taking into account variation in opportunities
bonds, self-control and, power-control) containment theory is for deviance. However, unlike other control theories (e.g., social
not a “general theory” as it is not intended to be applied to all bonds, self-control and, power-control) containment theory is
variations of offenders. Reckless, specifically states that not a “general theory” in that it is not intended to be applied to
all varieties of offending (Reckless, 1961a). Specifically, Reckless
(1961b) states that

containment theory is not appropriate for acts considered to be
irrational or impulsive, acts resulting from grave psychological containment theory is not appropriate for acts considered to be
distress, or acts of scrounging cultures or cultures defined by irrational (i.e., impulsive), acts resulting from severe
12
begging or panhandling, or crimino-genic communities. Earlier psychological distress, or acts of “parasitic” cultures (i.e., cultures
research has found that defined by begging or panhandling, or criminogenic
communities). Previous research has found that

from being in a state of psychological distress, also these actors
are a part of an established and accepted community of from being in a state of psychological distress, nor are these
deviance. Therefore Reckless’ theory, is a good fit for exploring actors part of an established and accepted community of
issues of deviant activity within the business environment, still it deviance. Reckless’ theory, therefore, is a good fit for exploring
cannot be applied to all types of deviant business behaviour. issues of deviant activity within the business environment, yet it
Since the theory assumes a rational actor operating within an cannot be applied to all types of deviant business behavior.
environment of socially defined deviance, acts that could be Because the theory assumes a rational actor operating within an
considered to be wrong per se (e.g., corporate violence, environment of socially defined deviance, acts that could be
pollution leading to death/significant harm to the environment) considered to be wrong per se (e.g., corporate violence,
must not be studied using containment theory. Containment pollution leading to death/significant harm to the environment)
theory is not a general theory of deviance, instead it focuses should not be studied using containment theory. Containment
upon rational acts that, for some social undesirability, would be theory is not a general theory of deviance, rather it focuses upon
considered normal behaviour. Containment theory explains and rational acts that, but for some social undesirability, would be
elucidates the presence of inner (internal to the individual) and normal behavior. Containment theory accounts for the presence
outer (originating through one’s association with some group or of inner (internal to the individual) and outer (originating
culture) controls, as well as factors that push or pull an individual through one’s association with some group or culture) controls,
towards deviant acts. as well as factors that push or pull an individual toward deviant
acts (Reckless, 1961b). In particular, containment theory asserts
In particular, containment theory asserts that there is an order that there is an ordering to these elements, with factors of inner
to these fundamentals, with factors of inner containment being containment being developed to address the onset of deviant
developed to address the onset of deviant pushes, and pushes, and factors of outer containment serving as secondary
13
factors of outer containment serving as secondary firming reinforcement mechanisms and buffers against deviant pulls
mechanisms and buffers against deviant pulls. According to (Reckless, 1961a). According to Reckless, we should expect to see
Reckless, we should expect to see factors of inner containment factors of inner containment exhibit a strong and primary
exhibit a strong and primary influence on decision making over influence on decision making over and above the factors of outer
and above the factors of outer containment. containment.

DEVIANT PUSHES AND PULLS Reckless specified that factors of
containment sit between the social pulls and inner pushes that Deviant Pushes and Pulls. Reckless (1961b) stated that factors of
lead containment sit between the social pulls and inner pushes that
lead

to deviant acts. Within the business environment, this
relationship can be theorized in the following means: 1. to deviant acts. Within the business environment, this
individuals come into the business environment with a focus on relationship can be conceptualized in the following way: 1)
goal attainment and performance maximization - inner pushes individuals come into the business environment with a focus on
directing their behaviour withinthe workplace; 2. factors of inner goal attainment and performance maximization - inner pushes
control work to contain the individual’s desire for illicit or directing their behavior within the workplace; 2) factors of inner
immoral goal attainment/performance maximization control work to contain the individual’s desire for illicit or
unethical goal attainment/performance maximization

14
one’s internalized standards of suitable behaviour both within one’s internalized standards of appropriate behavior both within
and outside of the business environment 3. factors of outer and outside of the business environment; 3) factors of outer
containment are established through the individual’s interaction containment are developed through the individual’s interaction
with the business environment, creating buffers that protect with the business environment, creating buffers that protect
against the development of deviant business behaviour; and 4. against the development of deviant business behavior; and, 4)
social pulls within the business environment work in concert social pulls within the business environment work in concert
with inner pushes to weaken factors of inner andd outer with inner pushes to weaken factors of inner and outer
containment, freeingthe individual to engage in deviant acts. A containment, freeing the individual to engage in deviant acts. A
condition that may push situation that may push

feels some type of pressure to engross in deviance as a way to
escape, or improve, feels some type of pressure to engage in deviance as a way to
escape, or improve,

socially undesirable because he will see this act as a way to
alleviate their existing pain. The only thing keeping the individual socially undesirable act because they see this act as a way to
from participating in the undesirable behaviour is the presence alleviate their current pain. The only thing keeping the individual
of strong factors of inner or outer containment. Pulls are factors from engaging in the undesirable behavior is the presence of
which “draw” an individual away from social conformity. Despite strong factors of inner or outer containment. Pulls are factors
the innate desire to engage in self-interested behaviours, factors that “draw” an individual away from social conformity. Despite
of containment work to direct an individual towards pro-social the innate desire to engage in self-interested behavior, factors of
action, whereas pulls work to free the individual from these containment work to direct an individual toward pro-social
15
factors of containment. Factors that pull an individual into action, whereas pulls work to free the individual from these
socially objectionable behaviour are events like the presence of factors of containment. Factors that pull an individual into
prospects for deviance, one’s close attachment socially undesirable behavior are things like the presence of
opportunities for deviance, one’s close attachment

antisocial peers, and the influence of deviant networks or
groups. As these pulls increase in their strength, the self- antisocial peers, and the influence of pro-deviant networks or
interested character of the individual will free them to follow groups. As these pulls increase in their intensity, the self-
along with the deviant pulls. However, if factors of containment interested nature of the individual will free them to follow along
are strong, then such self-interested behaviour can be with the deviant pulls. However, if factors of containment are
contained. These concepts of deviant pushes and pulls strong, such self-interested behavior can be contained. These
acknowledge that opportunities for specific forms of deviance concepts of deviant pushes and pulls acknowledge that
are not ubiquitous throughout society. Therefore, the influence opportunities for specific forms of deviance are not ubiquitous
of particular factors of inner and outer containment are throughout society. Therefore, the influence of specific factors of
expected to vary across individuals and situations. inner and outer containment should be expected to vary across
individuals and situations. Inner Containment.
INNER CONTAINMENT

factors of inner containment embody self-imposed limits on a
persons conduct which are formed out of a recognition and Factors of inner containment represent self-imposed limits on
internalization of pro-social norms, along with one’s attachment one’s conduct that are formed out of a recognition and
to pro-social ideals. While aspects of one’s personality might internalization of pro-social norms, as well as one’s attachment
have an influence on decision-making, this influence may merely to pro-social ideals. While factors of one’s personality may have
16
be a reflection of the way in which personality forms the an influence on decision-making, this influence may merely be a
systematic development of factors of inner containment. For reflection of the way in which personality shapes the systematic
example, a lot has been written about the relationship between development of factors of inner containment. For example,
gender and ethical decision making, and while the evidence as a much has been written about the relationship between gender
whole is mixed, a large portion of the evidence does suggest and ethical decision making, and while the evidence as a whole
that women are typically more ethically inclined than men 2 . is mixed, a large portion of the evidence does suggests that
However, work by Daly (1989) and Dodge (2007) suggests that women are typically more ethically inclined than men (Loe,
gender-based differences found in empirical tests of deviant Ferrell & Mansfield, 2000; Piquero & Moffett, 2014). However,
white-collar behaviour may represent the gender-based work by Daly (1989) and Dodge (2007) suggests that gender-
differential distribution of based differences found in empirical tests of deviant white-collar
behavior may represent the gender-based differential
distribution of

opportunities, as well as the strong influence of gender-based
socialization during developmental and formative years. opportunities, as well as the strong influence of gender-based
According to Reckless, aspects of inner containment, such as socialization during developmental and formative years.
one’s ability to avoid risk seeking behaviour, help the individual According to Reckless, aspects of inner containment, such as
in rejecting the deviant pushes and pulls they may experience. one’s ability to avoid risk seeking behavior, aid the individual in
Reckless further states that inner containment is in the best rejecting the deviant pushes and pulls they may experience
position to act against the pushes and pulls toward deviant acts (1961b). Reckless (1961b) further states that inner containment is
that one may experience. He asserts that strong factors of inner in the best position to act against the pushes and pulls toward
containment, in combination with factors of outer containment, deviant acts that one may experience. He asserts that strong
make it easier to contain deviant behaviour. This idea has factors of inner containment, in conjunction with factors of outer
support in the literature that has tested control theories on containment, make it easier to contain deviant behavior. This
other types of deviant behaviour, with several authors finding idea has support in the literature that has tested control theories
17
that factors of inner and outer containment were significantly on other types of deviant behavior, with several authors finding
related to the avoidance of delinquent behavior 3 . As the that factors of inner and outer containment were significantly
opportunity for deviance changes, so should the influence of related to the avoidance of delinquent behavior (Gibson &
factors of inner containment, as individuals rely upon different Wright, 2001; Lawrence, 1985; Jensen, 1973). As the opportunity
aspects of their personality to address the situations they face. for deviance changes, so too should the influence of factors of
inner containment, as individuals rely upon different aspects of
their personality to address the situations they face.

OUTER CONTAINMENT
Outer Containment. Factors of outer containment work to tie the
Factors of outer containment bind the individual to some group individual to some group or association that has value to the
or association that has importance to the individual, and with individual, and with which the individual has made a conscious
which the individual has made a well informed choice to choice to identify. Reckless (1961b) identified these factors as
recognize. Reckless acknowledged these factors as “buffers” “buffers” established by groups supportive of one’s pro-social
established by groups supportive of one’s pro-social behaviour. behavior. Because there are many different external buffers that
Since there are various external buffers that originate from originate from many different sources, it is
various sources, it is

that no one factor of outer containment will show worldwide
influence over an individual’s behaviour. Notwithstanding the that no one factor of outer containment will exhibit universal
fact that many factors of outer containment might be present influence over an individual’s behavior. Irrespective of the fact
within the business environment, one may only be expected to that many factors of outer containment may be present within
18
internalize those factors that have certain level of importance to the business environment, one may only be expected to
their detailed business role. internalize those factors that have some level of importance to
their specific business role.

possible that people will chose to adjourn these factors at
instances when deviant pushes or pulls exercise a substantial possible that people will chose to suspend these factors at times
influence on their decision-making. when deviant pushes or pulls exert a significant influence on
their decision-making.
19
Instances from: https://study.sagepub.com/system/files/Reckless%252C_Walter_C._-_Containment_Theory.pdf
1 88% 1: https://study.sagepub.com/system/files/Reckless%
252C_Walter_C._-_Containment_Theory.pdf 88%
on what stops people from engaging in crime— or precisely,
what “contains” people (contains or containment fundamentally on what stops people from engaging in crime— or rather, what
being used in place of the term controls). “contains” people (contains or containment essentially being
used in place of the term controls).
As observed by Richard Dodder and Janet Long, containment
theory was greatly popular in the 1950s and 1960s and has As noted by Richard Dodder and Janet Long, containment theory
become a staple in the sphere of criminological theory. While, enjoyed much of its popularity in the 1950s and 1960s and has
according to some scholars, the theory has gone out of vogue in become a staple in the field of criminological theory. While,
recent years, containment theory has kept its foundational place according to some scholars, the theory has gone out of vogue in
in criminological theory. recent years, containment theory has kept its foundational place
in criminological theory. The first conceptions of the theory were
CONCEPTIONS OF THE THEORY birthed when Reckless was exploring the shortcomings of other
approaches meant to explain delinquency and crime. Early
The initial conceptions of the theory were developed when
criminological theories were
Reckless was exploring the inadequacies of other approaches
meant to explain delinquency and crime. Early criminological
theories were
20
understood in terms of “pushing” and/or “pulling” individuals understood in terms of “pushing” and/or “pulling” individuals
toward deviance (e.g., differential association theory was toward deviance (e.g., differential association theory was
recognized as a pull theory and the subcultural theory recognized as a pull theory; Albert Cohen's subcultural theory
a combination push and pull theory). According to Reckless, the
problem with these approaches was that they failed to account a combination push and pull theory). According to Reckless, the
for problem with these approaches was that they failed to account
for
that did not engage in delinquency in spite of being confronted
with pushes and/or pulls toward delinquent ways. This was the that did not engage in delinquency in spite of being confronted
situation with the approach promoted by Reckless's mentors with pushes and/or pulls toward delinquent ways. This also was
the case with the approach promoted by Reckless's mentors,
social disorganization theory. Reckless accredited that social
disorganization approaches to the study of delinquency and social disorganization theory. Reckless acknowledged that social
crime enjoyed popularity for a generation. However, he disorganization approaches to the study of delinquency and
crime enjoyed popularity for a generation. He
21
that there was a fundamental oversight with this approach. He
did believe that there was a fundamental oversight with this approach.
Although he did believe
there was merit to social disorganization theory, Reckless
claimed that social disorganization alone was insufficient to there was merit to social disorganization theory, Reckless
completely address the issue of delinquency and crime. He claimed that social disorganization alone was insufficient to
emphasized that the largest proportion of people in completely address the issue of delinquency and crime. He
disorganized or instable areas do not turn out to be delinquent asserted that the largest proportion of people in disorganized or
or criminal at all. In fact, most of these people lead lives of instable areas do not turn out to be delinquent or criminal at all.
comparative traditionalism, which meant that social In fact, most of these people lead lives of relative conformity.
disorganization approaches, as well as other theories relying on This meant that social disorganization approaches, as well as
push and/or pull directions, needed something more if they other theories relying on push and/or pull orientations, needed
were to add further to something more if they were to add further to

understanding that brought Reckless to the essential questions
that gave rise to containment theory: “Why do some people understanding that brought Reckless to the fundamental
break through the reeling controls and others do not? Why do questions that gave rise to [p. 778 ↓ ] containment theory: “Why
rare cases in well-integrated society break through the lines of do some persons break through the tottering (social) controls
strong controls?” Reckless held that it was the interaction and others do not? Why do rare cases in well-integrated society
22
between inner self-controls and outer social controls that were break through the lines of strong controls?” (1961a, p. 339).
in part responsible for whether or not an individual would Reckless believed that it was the interplay between inner self-
engage in delinquency and criminality. Contrary to some other controls and outer social controls that was in part responsible
theorists, Reckless thought social disorganization was not about for whether or not an individual would engage in delinquency
the stress related to social and economic pressures directly. and criminality. Further, contrary to some other theorists,
Instead, he believed that where social disorganization played a Reckless thought social disorganization was not about the stress
causal role in delinquency and crime was when social related to social and economic pressures directly. Instead, he
disorganization led specifically to a breakdown in social controls. believed that where social disorganization played a causal role in
Important to his line of reasoning was Reckless's prior delinquency and crime was when social disorganization led
observation of religious sects. Reckless's observations of these specifically to a breakdown in social controls. Important to his
congested and highly controlled groups contributed to and line of reasoning was Reckless's prior observations of religious
hardened his beliefs that the community served the express sects. Reckless's observations of these closed and highly
purpose of external social control. controlled groups also contributed to and solidified his beliefs
that the community served the express function of external
social control.

a protective shield and/or insulation against delinquency. A poor
self-concept, on the a protective shield and/or insulation against delinquency. A poor
self-concept had the

23
to delinquency. This particular observation apparently held over to delinquency. This observation apparently held over time,
time, leading Reckless to assume that good and poor self- leading Reckless to assume that good and poor self-concept is a
concept is a reflection of the internalization of favourable and reflection of the internalization of favorable and unfavorable
unfavourable socialization and in that way, is an important socialization and in that way an important internal buffer against
internal shield against delinquency. Similar to many theorists, delinquency. Similar to many theorists, Reckless also looked to
Reckless also looked to the observations of others when the observations of others when formulating his new
formulating his new explanation of delinquency and, in doing so, explanation of delinquency and, in doing so, weaved together
weaved together the central tenets of containment theory. The the central tenets of containment theory. Reckless expressly
work of researchers Albert J. Reiss, F. Ivan Nye, and Fritz Redl mentioned the work of researchers Albert J. Reiss, F. Ivan Nye,
and Fritz Redl

discussed the predictive value of personal and social controls on
delinquent behaviour in his significant work with discussed the predictive value of personal and social controls on
delinquent behavior in his influential work with

Chicago juveniles. His observation and assessment of the
different dimensions of control were not lost on Reckless. Chicago juveniles. Reiss's observation and assessment of the
Reckless would incorporate this understanding into his own different dimensions of control were not lost on Reckless.
work, particularly the observation that personal controls were Reckless would incorporate this understanding into his own
more influential than social controls on recidivism. Also, Reiss's work, particularly the observation that personal controls were
notion of personal controls, such as self-control, essentially more influential than social controls on recidivism. Also, Reiss's
24
mirrored what Reckless called inner containment Nye's research notion of personal controls, such as self-control, would
further essentially mirror what Reckless would call inner containment.
Nye's research further

four types of control factors that were discussed by Reckless:
direct control, internalized control, indirect control, and the four types of control factors that were discussed by Reckless:
availability of alternative means to goals. All direct control, internalized control, indirect control, and the
availability of alternative means to goals. All

had a place in restraining delinquent behaviour. Reckless stated
that, according to Nye, punishment and discipline are one of the had a place in restraining delinquent behavior. Reckless states
features of direct control. Inner control is principally self-control, that, according to Nye, punishment and discipline are among the
and indirect control is a consequence of not wanting to features of direct control. Inner control is essentially self-control,
and indirect control is a result of not wanting to

disappoint meaningful others by deviant behavior. Of course,
individuals must have disappoint meaningful others by deviant behavior. Of course,
individuals must have
25

to deviant behaviour, which explains the fourth aspect of control
identified by Nye. Hence, Reckless's and Nye's explanations to deviant behavior, which explains the fourth aspect of control
share similar features. Both identified by Nye. Hence, Reckless's and Nye's explanations
share similar features. Both

are similar in scope in that they are only meant to explain
general deviance. Nye's notion of direct control can be equated are similar in scope in that they are only meant to explain
to outer containment concept general deviance. Also, Nye's notion of direct control can be
likened to Reckless's outer containment concept.

Redl and Wineman's formulation of the “behaviour control
system” as offering support for containment theory. Redl's work Redl and Wineman's formulation of the “behavior control
inner psychological processes thought to be involved in whether system” was also relied on by Reckless as offering support for
or not an individual would engage in delinquency and crime. containment theory. Redl's work considered inner psychological
Specifically, the concepts recognized by Redl were the processes thought to be involved in whether or not an individual
would engage in delinquency and crime. Specifically, the
concepts identified by Redl were the

26
the wide range of behaviours between the extremes of deviancy. the wide range of behaviors between the extremes of deviancy.
Reckless says that at one of the continuum is individual According to Reckless, at one end of the continuum is individual
pathology pathology.

those behaviours that containment theory means to explain. At
this extreme, individuals have been socialized by family or some those behaviors that containment theory means to explain.
affiliate or marginalized section or group to act as social Individuals at this extreme, explains Reckless, have been
deviants. socialized by family or some affiliate and/ or marginalized group
to behave as societal deviants (
1
27
Instances from: https://dergeater.ml/reckless-containment-theory-pdf.php
2 60% 2: https://dergeater.ml/reckless-containment-theory-pdf.php
60%
containment theory, which maintained that there are inner and
outer forces of containment that restrain a person from containment theory, which argued that there are ne and outer
committing a crime: the inner forces stem from moral and pas of containment that voyage a ne from committing a voyage:
religious principles as well as from a personal sense of right and the arrondissement pas voyage from amie and religious pas as
wrong; the well as from a personal sense of right and wrong; the
28

Urkund Report - A-1937trimester4containment - Docx (d55115812)

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Urkund Report - A-1937trimester4containment - Docx (d55115812)

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

URKUND

Urkund Analysis Result

Sources included in the report:

Instances where selected sources appear:

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY,BHOPAL

CRIMINOLOGY TRIMESTER- IV PROJECT WORK TOPIC: AN ANALYSIS OF THE CONTAINMENT

SUBMITTED BY : SUBMITTED TO : SHAMBHAVI KHARE PROF. PK SHUKLA 2018BALLB(HONS)30

Signature of the Student:….…........……………………

Signature of the Supervisor:……………………………

CERTIFICATE 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENT 4 INTRODUCTION 5 CONCEPTIONS OF THE THEORY 6

Containment theory, though interdisciplinary in nature, is considered to be one of the earliest

Reckless conducted a huge number of studies, on the behavioural patterns of nondelinquent

CONCEPTIONS OF THE THEORY

understood in terms of “pushing” and/or “pulling” individuals toward deviance (e.g.,

propounded by Albert Cohen represented

social disorganization theory. Reckless accredited that social disorganization approaches to

was of the view

the existing explanations of crime and delinquency. It was the above

control theories, generally, assert that deviant behaviour is a replication of selfinterested

a person towards a deviant act is one in which the person

feels some type of pressure to engross in deviance as a way to escape, or improve,

toor acquaintance with

opportunities, as well as the strong influence of gender-based socialization during

most likely to happen

FOUNDATION OF THIS THEORY

a protective shield and/or insulation against delinquency. A poor self-concept, on the

other hand, had the opposite effect, rendering a person prone

enlightened us of the ways in which controls were important to regulating personal

disappoint meaningful others by deviant behavior. Of course, individuals must have

of Reckless. Internalized control can be seen as mirroring inner containment concept of

egoand the superego.

SCOPE OF THIS THEORY

Containment theory is a general theory of crime and it explains

Hit and source - focused comparison, Side by Side:

Left side: As student entered the text in the submitted document.

Instances from: http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/kennedyijcjs2015vol10issue1.pdf

11 73% 11: http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/

12 73% 12: http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/

13 84% 13: http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/

14 90% 14: http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/

15 86% 15: http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/

16 85% 16: http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/

17 90% 17: http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/

18 82% 18: http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/

19 88% 19: http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/

20 83% 20: http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/

21 93% 21: http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/

22 71% 22: http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/

23 78% 23: http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/

24 75% 24: http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/

Instances from: https://study.sagepub.com/system/files/Reckless%252C_Walter_C._-_Containment_Theory.pdf

10 89% 10: https://study.sagepub.com/system/files/Reckless%

25 89% 25: https://study.sagepub.com/system/files/Reckless%

26 89% 26: https://study.sagepub.com/system/files/Reckless%

27 82% 27: https://study.sagepub.com/system/files/Reckless%

28 90% 28: https://study.sagepub.com/system/files/Reckless%

29 100% 29: https://study.sagepub.com/system/files/Reckless%

30 52% 30: https://study.sagepub.com/system/files/Reckless%

31 100% 31: https://study.sagepub.com/system/files/Reckless%

32 93% 32: https://study.sagepub.com/system/files/Reckless%

33 88% 33: https://study.sagepub.com/system/files/Reckless%

34 85% 34: https://study.sagepub.com/system/files/Reckless%

35 71% 35: https://study.sagepub.com/system/files/Reckless%