Strain Theories

IX. Conclusion

Strain theories are based on a simple, commonsense idea: When people are treated badly, they may become upset and engage in crime. Strain theories elaborate on this idea by describing the types of negative treatment most likely to result in crime, why negative treatment increases the likelihood of crime, and why some people are more likely than others to respond to negative treatment with crime.

The strains most likely to lead to crime are high in magnitude, perceived as unjust, and associated with low social control, and they create some pressure or incentive for crime. Examples include parental rejection, harsh or abusive discipline, chronic unemployment or work in “bad” jobs, criminal victimization, homelessness, discrimination, and the inability to achieve monetary goals. These strains lead to a range of negative emotions, such as anger. These emotions create pressure for corrective action, with crime being one possible response. Crime may allow individuals to reduce or escape from strains, seek revenge, or alleviate their negative emotions (through, e.g., illicit drug use). Strains may also increase crime by reducing social control, fostering association with criminal peers and beliefs favorable to crime, and contributing to traits such as negative emotionality. Individuals are most likely to engage in criminal coping when they lack the resources to legally cope with strains, have little to lose by engaging in crime, are disposed to criminal coping, and are in situations that present attractive opportunities for such coping.

Researchers are extending strain theory in important ways. They are using the theory to help explain group differences in crime, such as gender differences in offending. Also, the implications of strain theory for controlling crime are receiving increased attention. Agnew (2006) described still other extensions. In sum, strain theory constitutes one of the major explanations of crime and has much potential for controlling crime.

Read more about Criminology Theories.

References:

  1. Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30, 47–87.
  2. Agnew, R. (1997). Stability and change in crime over the life course: A strain theory explanation. In T. P. Thornberry (Ed.), Advances in criminological theory: Vol. 7. Developmental theories in crime and delinquency (pp. 101–132). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
  3. Agnew, R. (2001). Building on the foundation of general strain theory: Specifying the types of strain most likely to lead to crime and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 319–361.
  4. Agnew, R. (2006). Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
  5. Agnew, R. (2009). Juvenile delinquency: Causes and control. New York: Oxford University Press.
  6. Agnew, R. (in press). Controlling crime: Recommendations from general strain theory. In H. Barlow & S. Decker, Criminology and public policy: Putting theory to work. Philadelphia:Temple University Press.
  7. Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street. New York: Norton.
  8. Baron, S.W. (2004). General strain, street youth and crime: A test of Agnew’s revised theory. Criminology, 42, 457–483.
  9. Broidy, L. M., &Agnew, R. (1997). Gender and crime: A general strain theory perspective. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 275–306.
  10. Cloward, R., & Ohlin, L. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
  11. Cohen, A. (1955). Delinquent boys. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Eitle, D. J., & Turner, R. J. (2003). Stress exposure, race, and young adult crime. Sociological Quarterly, 44, 243–269.
  12. Elliott, D., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. (1979). An integrated perspective on delinquent behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 16, 3–27.
  13. Greenberg, D. (1977). Delinquency and the age structure of society. Contemporary Crises, 1, 189–223.
  14. Jang, S. J., & Johnson, B. R. (2003). Strain, negative emotions, and deviant coping among African Americans: A test of general strain theory. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19, 79–105.
  15. Mazerolle, P., & Maahs, J. (2000). General strain theory and delinquency: An alternative examination of conditioning influences. Justice Quarterly, 17, 323–343.
  16. Merton, R. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 672–682.
  17. Passas, N. (1997). Anomie, reference groups, and relative deprivation. In N. Passas & R.Agnew (Eds.), The future of anomie theory (pp. 62–94). Boston: Northeastern University Press.
  18. Paternoster, R., & Mazerolle, P. (1994). General strain theory and delinquency: A replication and extension. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31, 235–263.
  19. Spano, R., Riveria, C., & Bolland, J. (2006). The impact of timing of exposure to violence on violent behavior in a high poverty sample of inner city African American youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 681–692.
  20. Warner, B. D., & Fowler, S. K. (2003). Strain and violence: Testing a general strain model of community violence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 511–521.