Findings indicate that self-control was stable in neither absolute nor relative terms during a short time period of 6 months. Analyses of the absolute level of self-control found that self-control decreased while imprisoned. Similarly, analyses of the relative stability of self-control also indicated self-control was instable between time periods. The findings reveal that imprisonment increased self-centeredness, preference for simple tasks, and problem controlling one’s temper; however, measures of impulsivity, risk-taking, and preference for physical activities were not significantly affected by the prison experience. The study found more support for Gottfredson and Hirschi’s resiliency proposition with self-control being completely resilient to the intervention. Specifically, individuals in both the boot-camp facility and the control facility reported decreased levels of self-control between baseline and exit. The central tenet of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s self-control theory is that antisocial behavior is caused by stability between individual differences in self-control, as well as that after early childhood, intervention aimed at reducing antisocial behavior would be unsuccessful, as one’s level of self-control is resilient to such efforts. This study hypothesized that self-control would be stable over time within and between individuals. The expectation was that an individual’s absolute level of self-control would not vary during a short period of time and an individual’s relative rankings on a measure of self-control would not vary over time. This study directly assessed the resiliency of self-control to participation in a boot-camp program for adults. Prior research has indicated boot camps are generally ineffective in reducing recidivism. Tables, notes, and references