NCJ Number
188136
Journal
Criminology Volume: 39 Issue: 1 Dated: February 2001 Pages: 9-35
Editor(s)
Robert J. Bursik Jr.
Date Published
February 2001
Length
27 pages
Annotation
This study provided a test of general strain theory that focused primarily on the aspects of the theory that distinguished it from earlier versions of strain theory. General strain theory was tested by examining the relationship among strain, anger, negative emotions, legitimate coping, and criminal/deviance outcomes.
Abstract
Previous research on strain theory has assumed that strain was a direct cause of crime and delinquency. However, not all individuals who experienced strain responded in criminal or delinquent ways. According to general strain theory (introduced by Robert Agnew in 1992), strain triggered negative emotions, which in turn necessitated coping. When legitimate coping strategies were either ineffective or unavailable, an individual was likely to adopt illegitimate coping strategies. General strain theory identified three types of strain: the failure to achieve positively valued goals, the removal of positively valued stimuli, and the presentation of negative stimuli. The theory proposed an indirect relation in which strain was linked to crime through its relation to negative emotions (especially anger) in conjunction with the effectiveness and availability of legitimate coping strategies. The study reported that according to general strain theory the path to delinquency was more complex than traditional strain theories suggested. Three hypotheses were assessed that proposed relationships among strain, negative emotions, legitimate coping strategies, and illegitimate outcomes: (1) cognitive, behavioral, and emotional strain were associated with anger and other negative emotions; (2) anger and other negative emotional responses to strain are each associated with the use of legitimate coping strategies; and (3) controlling for the use of legitimate coping, strain-induced anger would increase the likelihood of illegitimate outcomes, whereas other negative emotional responses would not. The variables used to test general strain theory fell into five categories: strain, negative emotions, legitimate coping strategies, illegitimate/deviant outcomes, and control variables. Results suggested that strains were associated with anger and other negative emotions, but differed by type of strain and by type of negative emotion. In keeping with general strain theory, strain-induced anger significantly increased the likelihood of illegitimate/criminal outcomes, but anger was unrelated to the likelihood of legitimate coping, a finding not anticipated by general strain theory. Results indicated that individuals experienced anger and other negative emotions concurrently, yet these emotions triggered distinct coping responses. This analysis offers some support for general strain theory. The central general strain theory variables, strain, negative emotions, and legitimate coping all appear to be important in explaining the likelihood of illegitimate/criminal outcomes. However, the nature of the relationship among these variables appears to be more complex than the theory suggests. Study limitations are discusses. References