Deviant Behavior
ISSN: 0163-9625 (Print) 1521-0456 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/udbh20
When Criminal Coping is Likely: An Extension of
General Strain Theory
Robert Agnew
To cite this article: Robert Agnew (2013) When Criminal Coping is Likely: An Extension of
General Strain Theory, Deviant Behavior, 34:8, 653-670, DOI: 10.1080/01639625.2013.766529
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2013.766529
Published online: 14 Apr 2013.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 14370
View related articles
Citing articles: 53 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=udbh20
Deviant Behavior, 34: 653–670, 2013
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0163-9625 print / 1521-0456 online
DOI: 10.1080/01639625.2013.766529
When Criminal Coping is Likely: An
Extension of General Strain Theory
Robert Agnew
Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
General strain theory predicts that several variables influence or condition the effect of strains on
crime. The research on such conditioning effects, however, has produced mixed results at best.
The larger stress and coping literature suggests why this is the case: a given conditioning variable
has a small to modest effect on the choice of coping strategy, since there are hundreds of strategies
from which to choose and the choice of strategy is influenced by several factors. Drawing on this
insight and several literatures, it is argued that certain factors must converge before criminal coping
is likely: individuals must (a) possess a set of characteristics that together create a strong propensity
for criminal coping, (b) experience crimiogenic strains, which are perceived as unjust and high in
magnitude; and (c) be in circumstances conducive to criminal coping. Qualitative studies provide
support for this argument, and guidelines for quantitative testing are provided.
General strain theory (GST) has received much support since its introduction in 1992 and is now
one of the leading theories of crime (see Agnew 1992, 2007). Research indicates that a range of
strains increase the likelihood of crime, including strains such as harsh parental discipline, criminal victimization, and discrimination. Further, research suggests that these strains increase crime
partly through their effect on certain negative emotional states—particularly anger. One key part
of GST, however, has received mixed support. GST states that several variables influence or
condition the effect of strains on crime. These variables include coping skills and resources,
social support, social control, association with criminal peers, beliefs regarding crime, and traits
such as low self-control. Research sometimes finds support for these conditioning effects, but
often does not (see Agnew 2007 for an overview). For example, some studies find that individuals who associate with criminal peers are more likely to respond to strains with crime, while
other studies do not. This difficulty in explaining variation in the reaction to strain is the major
problem of the theory, and GST researchers routinely call for more work in this area.
Several explanations have been advanced for the mixed results regarding conditioning effects,
including the difficulty of detecting interactions in survey research, the failure to examine certain
key conditioning variables, and the need to directly measure the coping strategies employed by
strained individuals. These explanations all have some merit and are considered in more detail
below. This article, however, draws on the larger stress literature to offer a new explanation for
the mixed results regarding conditioning effects. It is argued that certain factors must converge
Received 26 July 2012; accepted 13 December 2012.
Address correspondence to Robert Agnew, Department of Sociology, Emory University, 1555 Dickey Dr., Atlanta,
GA 30322, USA. E-mail: bagnew@emory.edu
654
R. AGNEW
before there is a strong likelihood of criminal coping. Individuals must possess a set of related
characteristics, which together create a strong propensity for criminal coping, and encounter
certain types of strains in certain types of circumstances. Researchers, however, typically examine the effect of one conditioning variable at a time, with other conditioning variables controlled;
they often employ gross measures of strain; and they seldom consider the circumstances
surrounding strain.
This article begins by providing an overview of GST and the coping process, elaborating on
Agnew (1992, 2007). It then discusses the research on GST and conditioning effects, as well as
the explanations for the mixed results from this research. It next reviews relevant research from
the larger stress and coping literature; research indicating that a range of factors must be considered in order to accurately predict the nature and effectiveness of coping efforts. Finally,
the core part of the article builds on this insight by describing the combination of factors that make
criminal coping likely. The arguments presented are said to be compatible with the qualitative
research on offenders, and suggestions for the quantitative test of these arguments are presented.
GENERAL STRAIN THEORY AND THE COPING PROCESS
GST states that certain strains increase the likelihood of crime, with strains referring to events
and conditions disliked by individuals (Agnew 1992, 2001, 2007). These strains lead to a range
of negative emotions, such as anger and frustration. And these emotions create pressure for
corrective action, with crime being one method of coping. Crime may be a way to reduce or
escape from strains (e.g., theft to obtain money, running away to escape abusive parents), to
obtain revenge against the source of strain or related targets (e.g., assaulting abusive peers),
and to alleviate negative emotions (e.g., using illicit drugs to feel better). While strains lead
to crime primarily through the negative emotions they generate, they may also increase crime
by reducing social control (e.g., parental abuse reduces attachment to parents), fostering the
social learning of crime (e.g., victimization prompts association with delinquent peers), and leading to traits conducive to crime (e.g., harsh discipline leads to negative emotionality).
GST distinguishes between objective and subjective strains. Objective strains refer to events
and conditions that are disliked by most people in a given group. Subjective strains refer to events
and conditions that are disliked by the individuals experiencing them. As the larger stress literature demonstrates, individuals often differ in their subjective evaluation of the same objective
strains. For example, some students are devastated by low grades, while others care little about
their grades. The larger stress literature, in fact, makes a sharp distinction between objective stressors and the ‘‘cognitive appraisal’’ of those stressors, and contends that the cognitive appraisal
has the larger effect on outcome variables (Contrada 2011; Smith and Kirby 2011). Likewise,
GST states that subjective strains should have a larger impact on crime than objective strains.
Certain strains are said to be more conducive to crime than others. These strains are high in
magnitude (severe, frequent, of long duration, recent, expected to continue into the future, and
involving core goals, needs, values, identities, and=or activities). These strains are unjust, involving the voluntary and intentional violation of relevant justice norms. These strains are associated
with low social control. For example, the strain of parental rejection is associated with weak
bonds to parents, while the strain of chronic unemployment is associated with a weak investment
in conventional activities. (By contrast, the strain of studying long hours is associated with a high
WHEN CRIMINAL COPING IS LIKELY
655
commitment to school.) And these strains create some pressure or incentive for criminal coping.
In particular, the strains are easily resolved through crime and=or are associated with exposure to
others who model crime, reinforce crime, or present beliefs favorable to crime. Agnew (2001,
2007) provides suggestions on how to measure both the objective and subjective sides of these
dimensions.
Those particular strains said to be most conducive to crime include parental rejection; harsh,
erratic discipline; child abuse and neglect; negative school experiences, such as low grades and
negative relations with teachers; peer abuse; work in the secondary labor market; chronic unemployment; marital problems; the failure to achieve selected goals, including thrills=excitement,
autonomy, masculine status, and money; criminal victimization; homelessness; discrimination;
and residence in economically deprived communities.
THE COPING PROCESS
The description of the coping process in GST draws heavily on the larger stress literature, but
focuses on those features of coping that are especially relevant to crime (see Agnew 2007;
for overviews of the stress and coping literature, see Carver 2011; Finan et al. 2011; Folkman
and Moskowitz 2004; Smith and Kirby 2011). As illustrated in Figure 1, the coping process
has several stages. First, individuals typically experience or anticipate experiencing an objective
strain. As indicated above, several dimensions of objective strains increase the likelihood of
criminal coping. Second, individuals subjectively evaluate or cognitively appraise the objective
strain. Evaluations of the magnitude and injustice of the strain are particularly important in the
prediction of criminal coping (Agnew 2001, 2007). Unjust strains of high magnitude are more
likely to overwhelm legal coping resources, generate anger and other negative emotions (more
below), reduce social control, foster the social learning of crime, and contribute to traits such as
negative emotionality and low constraint.
FIGURE 1 A model of the coping process in general strain theory.
656
R. AGNEW
Third, individuals experience a negative emotional reaction to the strain. This emotional
reaction is primarily a function of the subjective evaluation of the strain, although objective
strains contribute to emotional reactions independent of cognitive processing (Finan et al.
2011). Certain strains and evaluations may be more conducive to some emotions than to others
(e.g., Agnew 2007; Ganem 2010; also see Smith and Kirby 2011). To give a few examples:
strains evaluated as unjust may be more strongly linked to anger, those involving the inability
to achieve desired goals to frustration, those seen as uncontrollable to depression, and those
involving impending threats seen as uncontrollable to fear. Perceptions of controllability play
a central role in the response to strains, and future work on GST should devote greater attention
to this factor (see Contrada 2011; Smith and Kirby 2011 for a discussion of the key role that
perceptions of controllability play in the larger stress literature). While a range of negative emotions may foster crime, anger occupies a special place in GST. Anger energizes the individual for
action, reduces the ability and inclination to legally cope (e.g., to negotiate with others), reduces
concern for the consequences of one’s behavior, creates a desire for revenge, and provides some
justification for crime (e.g., to right a wrong). It is important to note that emotions may have
feedback effects on the subjective evaluation of the strain. For example, feelings of anger
may increase the perceived injustice of the strain (see Skinner and Zimmer-Gembeck 2007,
for a discussion of the close relationship between cognitions and emotions).
Finally, individuals cope with their strain, with negative emotions providing the major impetus
for coping. But as GST and certain researchers have recently stated, coping is also driven by the
nature of strain. That is, coping is a rational as well as emotionally driven process (e.g., Agnew
2007; Felson et al. 2012). Individuals who confront strains may decide that crime is the best way
to respond to them, independent of the emotions they are experiencing. Take, for example, an
individual who is chronically unemployed. This individual may decide that the costs of criminal
coping are low, since they have a low stake in conformity, and that the benefits are high, since
crime provides a quick solution to financial problems. In addition, it is important to note that
strain and negative emotions not only lead directly to criminal coping, but may indirectly lead
to crime by fostering traits such as low constraint and negative self-control, reducing social
control, and contributing to the social learning of crime. Certain of these indirect effects may also
be viewed as methods of coping. For example, one may cope with parental abuse by reducing
one’s emotional ties to and contact with parents. This, in turn, lowers social control. These
indirect effects of strain and negative emotions on crime are not shown in Figure 1, for the sake
of simplicity, but are discussed by Agnew (2007).
GST has focused on the explanation of criminal coping in general, but the nature of the strain
and the emotions it prompts may affect the type of criminal coping. Since criminal coping is frequently intended to reduce strain, one might expect an association between particular strains and
types of crime. In support of this, Felson and colleagues (2012) find that financial strain is most
strongly associated with income-generating crime, while family strain is most strongly associated
with assault. And De Coster and Kort-Bultler (2006) find that school-related strain is most
strongly associated with school crime, while family strain is most strongly associated with family
crime. It should be kept in mind, however, that criminal coping is sometimes intended to extract
revenge or alleviate negative emotions, so financial strain might sometimes lead to violence and
illicit drug use. Further, there is some evidence for ‘‘stress spillover,’’ with strains in one area of
life sometimes leading to strains in other areas (De Coster and Kort-Butler 2006). Consequently, a
strain such as low pay at work may lead to family conflict and thereby result in family violence.
WHEN CRIMINAL COPING IS LIKELY
657
With respect to emotions, there is some reason to expect that anger may be especially conducive
to violence, frustration to theft, fear to escape attempts such as running away, and depression to
drug use (Agnew 2007; Ganem 2010). These are promising lines of argument, in need of further
development and research. (In addition, researchers might also expand GST by examining
whether particular strains and emotions are linked to non-criminal forms of deviance, such as
suicidal behavior, purging, and road rage; see, e.g., Ellwanger 2007; Hay and Meldrum 2010;
Sharp et al. 2001; Sigfusdottir et al. 2008.)
It is critical to keep in mind, however, that most strained individuals engage in legal coping
most of the time (Agnew 1992, 2007). For example, strained individuals may engage in a range
of legal efforts to end or reduce their strain (e.g., negotiate with the teachers who mistreat them),
may cognitively reinterpret their strains in an effort to reduce their subjective adversity (e.g.,
lower the importance attached to certain goals), and may alleviate negative emotions through strategies such as exercise and meditation. Likewise, the larger stress literature recognizes that there
are literally hundreds of coping strategies, the large share of which are legal (for overviews, see
Carver 2011; Carver and Connor-Smith 2010; Compas et al. 2001; Folkman and Moskowitz
2004; Skinner et al. 2003; Skinner and Zimmer-Gembeck 2007; Smith and Kirby 2011). This
preference for legal coping is readily understandable. Most individuals have some association
with conventional groups that model legal coping, reinforce such coping, provide beliefs that
encourage such coping, and sanction criminal coping (see Cloward and Ohlin 1960; Cohen 1955).
This prevalence of legal coping poses a fundamental challenge for GST; what causes some
strained individuals to occasionally cope through crime? As noted above, the nature of the strain,
its subjective evaluation, and the emotions it generates have a strong impact on the likelihood of
criminal coping. The likelihood of criminal coping is also said to be strongly influenced by the
characteristics of strained individuals and their social environments (Agnew 1992, 2007). These
characteristics include coping skills and resources (e.g., problem solving and social skills, negative emotionality and low constraint, low socioeconomic status [SES], prosocial and criminal
self-efficacy); conventional and criminal social support; level of social and self control; association with criminal others; beliefs regarding crime; and exposure to situations where the costs
of crime are low and the benefits are high. These factors influence the subjective evaluation of
objective strains, including the perceived magnitude and injustice of strains. They influence
the emotional reaction to strains, including the individual’s sensitivity to strains and the emotions
experienced when upset, such as anger, depression, and fear. And they directly influence the
choice of coping strategies. In particular, they influence the ability to engage in different strategies, the costs and benefits of different strategies, and the disposition for these strategies. As an
illustration, individuals high in negative emotionality are more likely to view a given strain as
high in magnitude and unjust, experience intense anger in response to the strain, and have a
disposition for aggressive coping (Agnew 2007).
The model in Figure 1 is admittedly complex. And, as a further complication, it should be
noted that the coping process often plays out over an extended period of time. Individuals frequently respond to strains with a range of legal coping strategies and only turn to criminal coping
when these strategies fail to reduce their strain or negative emotions. In particular, it has been
argued that certain legal coping strategies exacerbate strains and negative emotions, thereby
increasing the likelihood that individuals will eventually turn to crime. For example, an individual
may initially cope by employing the strategies of rumination and withdrawal. Rumination is likely
to heighten the perceived magnitude and injustice of strain, leading to an increase in anger. And
658
R. AGNEW
withdrawal is likely to reduce levels of social support. Conditions may then deteriorate to the point
where the individual turns to criminal coping; for example, assaulting the source of their strain.
Criminologists rely primarily on survey research to test their theories, and it is difficult to
capture the complexities of coping through a limited number of closed-ended questions. Further,
it is difficult to statistically examine all of the effects described in the model, including the
reciprocal and conditioning effects. These problems have been confronted by researchers in
the larger stress literature, and these researchers are actively engaged in the development of data
collection and analysis techniques that will allow them to more accurately describe the nature of
stress=coping and the many factors that affect it (e.g., Anderson et al. 2011; Compas et al. 2001;
Folkman and Moskowitz 2004; Skinner et al. 2003). Such methods and techniques will hopefully find their way into the GST research. But, for the present, GST researchers must make
certain simplifying assumptions when examining the coping process.
GST researchers typically examine whether certain conditioning variables increase the likelihood that individuals will ultimately respond to strains with crime (although see Aseltine et al.
2000). If a conditioning effect is found, it is not clear whether the conditioning variable has influenced the subjective interpretation of an objective strain, the emotional reaction to the strain,
and=or the effect of the strain and emotions on criminal coping. Further, there is no information
on how the coping process has unfolded over time. Researchers, for example, do not know if
negative emotions lead directly to criminal coping, or first lead to other forms of coping, such
as rumination and withdrawal, and only lead to crime when these prove unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, studies that examine whether certain variables condition the effect of strains on crime provide valuable information with important policy implications. These studies are described next.
THE RESEARCH ON CONDITIONING EFFECTS
The examination of conditioning effects in GST usually assumes the following form (for an overview, see Agnew 2007; for selected studies, see Aseltine et al. 2000; Baron 2007; Broidy 2001;
Jang and Johnson 2005; Mazerolle and Maahs 2000): Researchers make use of cross-sectional
and occasionally longitudinal survey data. They examine a few conditioning effects through
the use of multiplicative terms. For example, they examine whether delinquent peers conditions
the effect of strain on crime by creating an interaction term: strain delinquent peers. The strain
measure is usually an additive scale composed of several strains, but individual strains are sometimes examined. The multiplicative term is added to a regression equation in order to determine
whether it has a statistically significant association with crime. A range of other variables are
controlled in the regression, including additional variables that may condition the effect of strain
on crime. If other conditioning effects are examined, such as delinquent beliefs strain, they
are occasionally controlled as well. Researchers, then, examine whether particular variables
condition the effect of strain on crime, with other conditioning variables held constant.
Agnew (2007) provides an overview of the research on conditioning effects and GST. He notes
that researchers have examined a range of conditioning variables and, in every case, the results are
mixed. Some studies find that the conditioning variable in question significantly influences the
effect of strain on crime, while others do not. This is the case with the following conditioning
variables: negative emotionality and low constraint (or low self control), self-efficacy, social support, social control (including emotional bonds to parents, investment in school, beliefs regarding
WHEN CRIMINAL COPING IS LIKELY
659
crime, and residence in disorganized communities), association with criminal peers, and beliefs
favorable to crime. It should be noted that the studies of a particular conditioning variable are
usually not directly comparable to one another; most notably, they tend to examine different
strains and measure conditioning variables in different ways. Also, certain conditioning variables
have not been examined or subject to multiple tests.
POSSIBLE REASONS FOR THE MIXED RESULTS
Several reasons have been offered for these mixed results. As noted, most studies employ survey
data and examine conditioning effects through the use of multiplicative terms (e.g., strain social
support). McClelland and Judd (1993) demonstrate that it is quite difficult to detect interaction
effects in survey research, particularly compared to experimental research. There are several reasons for this, including the fact that variables are often less reliably measured in survey research.
When two variables containing measurement error are multiplied, the resulting interaction term
exacerbates the error. The major reason, however, is that the variance of the interaction term is
likely to be restricted in survey research, usually because there is limited variation in the variables
which comprise this term. As a consequence, McClelland and Judd recommend the use of
alternative methods for detecting interaction effects, including experiments and surveys which
oversample extreme cases. Agnew (2007) also recommends the use of vignette studies (also
see Mazerolle and Maahs 2000).
Others argue that GST has neglected several core conditioning variables. Related to this, the
larger stress, coping, and resilience literatures have pointed to several key conditioning variables
not listed by GST. Neglected variables include bio-psychological factors that influence the
sensitivity and response to stressors (e.g., Cicchetti and Blender 2006; McCaffrey 2011; Rutter
2006; Skinner and Zimmer Gembeck 2007; Wachs 2006; Williams et al. 2011); attention deficit=
hyperactivity (Johnson and Kercher 2007); emotional expression or the tendency to express
emotions in certain ways (De Coster and Zito 2010); religion and spirituality (e.g., Folkman
and Moskowitz 2004; Jang and Johnson 2005); positive emotionality, including optimism
(Carver and Connor-Smith 2010; Finan et al. 2011; Folkman and Moskowitz 2004; Giordano
et al. 2007); and some previous experience with stressors, which may build tolerance for adversity
and foster effective coping skills (Seery et al. 2010). Preliminary data suggest that these factors
may condition the effect of strains on outcome variables, including crime, for at least some
categories of people. For example, Jang and Johnson (2005) find that religiosity is a significant
conditioning variable for African American females, but not males, reflecting the greater role
of religion in the lives of females. Researchers should certainly devote more attention to these
conditioning variables.
Still others suggest that GST should examine the coping strategies that individuals first employ
in response to strains (e.g., Aseltine et al. 2000; Broidy 2001). It is said that some individuals tend
to employ maladaptive strategies that eventually result in criminal coping, including the strategies
of opposition, rumination, panic, self-blame, blaming others, wishful thinking, and withdrawal=isolation. Other individuals tend to employ more adaptive strategies, such as problem solving, negotiation, support seeking, and positive reappraisal. Research, however, suggests that the
effect of these strategies on crime and other negative outcomes is usually small to modest in size
(for meta-analyses and overviews, see Carver and Connor-Smith 2010, Clarke 2006; Compas
660
R. AGNEW
et al. 2001; Folkman and Moskowitz 2004; Penley et al. 2002; Seiffge-Krenke 2011; Skinner et al.
2003; Smith and Kirby 2011). The primary reason for this is that the effect of a coping strategy
depends on such things as the type of stressor, the characteristics of the stressed individual, the
circumstances surrounding the stressor, and when the strategy is employed in the coping process.
For example, the strategy of problem solving tends to be associated with positive outcomes when
stressors are controllable, but negative outcomes when they are not. The strategies of denial and
avoidance may be effective when used early in the coping process, allowing individuals to better
manage their emotions, but ineffective when used later in the coping process.
Nevertheless, a better understanding of how individuals initially cope with strains can shed
important light on why some ultimately turn to criminal coping. However, it should be noted that
the proper examination of the coping process is difficult. There are hundreds of coping strategies;
individuals often employ several strategies, contemporaneously and over time; the strategies they
employ often vary, depending on the stressors they experience and other factors; and—as noted—
the effectiveness of given coping strategies is often dependent on the type of stressor and other
factors (see Compas et al. 2001; Penley et al. 2002; Seiffge-Krenke 2011; Uchino and Birmingham 2011). In addition, the commonly used inventories of how people cope are problematic.
Most notably, data suggest that retrospective reports of coping are often inaccurate, with respondents reporting coping strategies that they did not employ and failing to report strategies that they
did employ. Several alternative ways to measure coping have been developed in response to this
and other problems (Anderson et al. 2011; Compas et al. 2001; Folkman and Moskowitz 2004).
GST researchers should make use of such alternatives, but with the recognition that the coping
process is quite complex.
LESSONS FROM THE CONTEMPORARY STRESS RESEARCH
Stress researchers have examined whether certain variables condition the effect of stressors on
outcomes such as physical health, mental well-being, and, occasionally, crime. The conditioning
variables are similar to those examined in the GST research and include age, sex, race=ethnicity,
traits such as pessimism and intelligence, social support, academic achievement, and several family and peer variables—such as family attachment, parenting style, and deviant peer association
(see Grant et al. 2006 for an overview). As is the case with the GST research, the results of this
research are generally mixed: some studies find support for conditioning effects and others do not.
For example, Grant and colleague’s (2006) meta-analysis found that sex significantly conditioned
the effect of stressors in slightly more than half of the studies examined (also see Davis et al. 2011;
McCaffery 2011). The likelihood of finding conditioning effects, however, was frequently higher
when researchers refined their analyses, considering particular types of stressors (e.g., exposure to
violence versus poverty), different outcome measures (e.g., externalizing versus internalizing
behaviors), and combinations of conditioning variables (e.g., age plus social skills). I return to
this point below.
The stress research provides some insight into the reasons for these mixed results. Particular
conditioning variables do not strongly constrain individuals to engage in particular types of coping
partly because there are hundreds of coping strategies from which to choose (Carver and ConnorSmith 2010; Compas et al. 2001; Seiffge-Krenke 2011; Skinner et al. 2003; Skinner and
Zimmer-Gembeck 2007). Examples include instrumental action, talking with others, distraction,
WHEN CRIMINAL COPING IS LIKELY
661
escape, seeking spiritual support, cognitive restructuring, humor, rumination, venting, and
aggression. Further, each coping strategy may assume a variety of forms in particular instances.
For example, instrumental action in response to economic stress might involve asking for a raise,
working longer hours, finding a better-paying job, obtaining a second job, taking out a loan, seeking government assistance, cutting back on expenses, and=or selling possessions. So while particular conditioning variables may have some influence on the ability to employ and the disposition
for certain coping strategies, most individuals still have a large number of coping strategies at their
disposal. This is true even of many individuals in highly aversive environments, as the resilience
research demonstrates. While such individuals may be disadvantaged in terms of such things as
financial resources and family support, they often possess one or more ‘‘protective factors’’ that
facilitate various types of legal coping (for overviews, see American Psychological Association
2008; Daigle et al. 2010; Koball et al. 2011; Rutter 2006, 2007; Seery et al. 2010; Southwick
et al. 2005). Such factors include a positive identity, optimistic orientation, cognitive flexibility,
academic and cognitive skills, support from non-family members, self-efficacy, and religiosity.
In addition, the modest relationship between particular conditioning variables and coping strategies is due to the fact that the choice of coping strategy is influenced by several other factors,
including the individual’s standing on other conditioning variables, the nature and cognitive
appraisal of the stressor (e.g., health problem versus family conflict, controllable versus uncontrollable); the emotional reaction to the stressor (e.g., anger versus fear); and the circumstances
surrounding the stressor (e.g., are other stressors being experienced at the same time). To give
a couple examples: a death in the family is more likely than an employment problem to prompt
religious coping; and stressors perceived as controllable are more likely to prompt problemsolving coping than those seen as uncontrollable (see Carver and Connor-Smith 2010; Smith
and Kirby 2011).
Given the above, the mixed results regarding conditioning variables in the GST research are
readily understandable. But, as suggested in the coping literature, we might improve the prediction of criminal coping if we recognize the complexity of the coping process. The choice of a
coping strategy such as crime is likely influenced by the convergence of several factors, including the characteristics of the individual, the characteristics of the stressor, the appraisal of the
stressor, and the circumstances surrounding the stressor. I next elaborate on this point, describing
the combination of factors most likely to result in criminal coping.
COMBINATIONS THAT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE
THE LIKELIHOOD OF CRIMINAL COPING
The core argument of this article is that certain individuals experiencing certain types of strain in
certain circumstances are likely to engage in criminal coping. It is possible to list the combinations of factors that make criminal coping likely by drawing on classic strain theory, general
strain theory, and certain of the quantitative and qualitative research on crime.
The classic strain theories of Cohen (1955) and Cloward and Ohlin (1960) state that ‘‘there are
powerful incentives not to deviate.’’ Criminal coping is likely only when individuals confront
strains of great magnitude, such as the failure to achieve their status or monetary goals; view such
strains as unjust; and form or join delinquent gangs. Gang membership allows for the alleviation
of monetary and status strains, and it is said to substantially increase the likelihood of criminal
662
R. AGNEW
coping by affecting a range of conditioning variables. Gang membership reduces social control,
including ties to conventional society and concern for official sanctions; fosters beliefs that justify
or approve of criminal coping; provides regular exposure to criminal models; results in the
reinforcement of criminal coping and sometimes the sanction of conventional coping; fosters a
criminal identity; and increases exposure to situations conducive to crime. Recent research has
confirmed the powerful impact of gang membership on individuals, over and above that of
delinquent peers (e.g., Melde and Esbesen 2011; Thornberry et al. 2003). Surprisingly, GST
researchers have not to my knowledge examined whether gang membership conditions the effect
of strains on crime.
GST also provides some guidance in identifying the combination of factors likely to result in
criminal coping. GST focuses on a much broader range of strains than classic strain theory but,
like classic strain theory, emphasizes that only certain strains increase crime. As noted above,
these strains are perceived as high in magnitude and unjust, they are associated with low control,
and they create some pressure or incentive for criminal coping. Researchers rarely measure these
characteristics, in large part because available data do not allow them to do so (although see Baron
and Hartnagel 1997; Rebellon et al. 2009). GST, however, identifies particular strains having
these characteristics (see above); researchers should focus on theses strains, measuring their magnitude and perceived injustice if possible. GST also identifies a host of individual characteristics
that increase the likelihood of criminal coping (see above), such as low self control, negative
emotionality, low social control, beliefs favorable to crime, and association with criminal peers,
including gang members. Again, most research considers each characteristic in isolation, with
other relevant characteristics controlled. It is critical to consider such characteristics in combination, so as to better index the individual’s overall propensity for criminal coping (see Mazerolle
and Maahs 2000). Further, GST provides some information about the nature of those circumstances that are conducive to criminal coping. Drawing on the routine activities perspective,
GST states that criminal coping is more likely when individuals are in situations where the costs
of crime are low (e.g., capable guardians are absent) and the benefits are high (e.g., attractive
targets for crime are present). Criminal coping is also more likely in situations that foster the
social learning of crime, such as those where strains occur before an audience that encourages
criminal coping.
Drawing on certain quantitative and qualitative research, there is also reason to believe that
strains are more likely to result in criminal coping when they occur in the following circumstances: Adolescents are interacting with peers in unsupervised settings; alcohol and=or drugs
are present; aggressive cues, such as weapons, are present; others who encourage or support
criminal coping are present, including audience members; the larger community is low in collective efficacy; and—as suggested above—attractive targets for crime are present and capable guardians are absent. A range of factors influence the attractiveness of targets for property and violent
crimes (see Agnew and Brezina 2012). For example, targets for violent crime are more attractive
if they are engaged in criminal activity themselves (making them less likely to involve police) and
are smaller than the offender. Related to the above, criminal coping is more likely when strains
occur in settings such as bars, clubs, skating rinks, and concerts; that is, ‘‘staging areas’’ or densely populated, causal settings that bring youth together, particularly youth from different groups
(e.g., Agnew 2006, 2011; Agnew and Brezina 2012; Anderson 1999; Cooney 1998; Felson 1996;
Jacobs and Wright 2006; Katz 1988; Melde and Esbensen 2011; Osgood et al. 1996; Shover
1996; Weisburd et al. 2009; Wikstrom et al. 2010; Wright and Topalli 2013).
WHEN CRIMINAL COPING IS LIKELY
663
When strains, individuals, and circumstances of the above types converge, there is a substantial increase in the likelihood of criminal coping. Individuals confront pressing strains that are
not easily ignored or defined away; their ability and disposition for legal coping is relatively
low, but their ability and disposition for criminal coping is relatively high; and they are in
circumstances conducive to criminal coping (e.g., the costs of criminal coping are seen as
low and the benefits as high). This argument has not been tested in the quantitative research,
but certain qualitative research provides some support it. Such research, in particular, finds that
criminal coping is likely when individuals (a) possess a set of individual and social characteristics that suggest a strong propensity for criminal coping; (b) confront certain strains that are
perceived as high in magnitude and, frequently, unjust; and (c) are in circumstances of the type
just described.
Support From the Qualitative Research
The qualitative research focuses on gang members, ‘‘street youth’’; ‘‘street offenders’’; ‘‘career
criminals’’; ‘‘badasses’’; ‘‘hardmen’’; ‘‘hardcore offenders;’’; and those having a strong commitment to the ‘‘criminal lifestyle,’’ ‘‘street culture,’’ or the ‘‘code of the street’’ (e.g., Agnew 2006;
Anderson 1999; Baron et al. 2001; Baron and Hartnagel 1997; Brezina et al. 2009; Cooney 1998;
Decker and Van Winkle 1996; Hagan and McCarthy 1997; Jacobs and Wright 2006; Katz 1988;
Messerschmidt 1993; Miller 2001; Shover 1996; Topalli 2005; Wright and Topalli 2013). In all
cases, these individuals have a range of characteristics that, taken together, suggest a strong propensity for criminal coping. They are low in self-control and high in negative emotionality, being
especially sensitive to provocations. They have few options for legal coping. Among other things,
they are poor, live in deprived communities or on the street, have few opportunities for decent
work, and have few people they can turn to for support. They cannot turn to the police when threatened because they are involved in illegal activities, their values strongly discourage cooperating
with police, and=or the police will not take their complaints seriously. Likewise, they cannot
turn to conventional others such as family and friends; these others lack resources, are unwilling
to help, and=or ties to them have been severed. They are low in most forms of social control,
and so have little to lose through criminal coping. Many, in fact, believe they will be dead
within a few years. They do, however, have some commitment to criminal coping. They have
criminal identities or at least identities that stress toughness, respect=honor, and thrills=
excitement; they are high in criminal self-efficacy (believe they have the skills to successfully
engage in crime); and they hold beliefs conducive to criminal coping. Most notably, they believe
that crime is a desirable, justifiable, or at least excusable response to a range of strains—
particularly disrespectful treatment by others and a desperate need for money (Cooney 1998;
Topalli 2005). And they associate with others who encourage, model, and reinforce criminal
coping. In fact, the failure to engage in criminal coping is sometimes sanctioned.
Despite their characteristics, these individuals do not commit crime all of the time; in fact, they
conform the large majority of time (see Anderson 1999; Decker and Van Winkle 1996). They are
much more likely to engage in crime when they experience strains perceived to be high in magnitude and, frequently, unjust. In some cases, these strains would qualify as high in magnitude in
the eyes of those in the larger society (i.e., they are objective strains of high magnitude). For
example, street youth sometimes engage in theft and other criminal acts when they lack adequate
664
R. AGNEW
food, clothing, or shelter (Hagan and McCarthy 1997). Those committed to the code of the street
or honor cultures engage in violent retaliation when they are criminally victimized (Cooney 1998;
Jacobs and Wright 2006). Still others engage in income-generating crimes to finance their drug
addictions (Shover 1996). In other cases, the strains may appear to be trivial, such as a seemingly
minor insult or having insufficient funds to ‘‘party.’’ The qualitative research, however, makes
clear that such strains are viewed as quite serious by those experiencing them (e.g., Anderson
1999; Cooney 1998; Jacobs and Wright 2006; Katz 1988; Shover 1996; Wright and Topalli
2013). Seemingly minor slights are interpreted as challenges to ones honor or reputation, threats
to ones core identity as a ‘‘man,’’ and acts that may expose one to ongoing victimization if
ignored. And for those with a strong commitment to the ‘‘party’’ lifestyle, the lack of funds to
party challenges one’s major reason for living. As Topalli (2005:807) states, such individuals
are ‘‘obsessed . . . with a constant need for cash, drugs, and alcohol to ‘keep the party going’ ’’
(also see Shover 1996; Wright and Topalli 2013).
Finally, qualitative researchers sometimes describe the circumstances where criminal coping is
most likely. Take, for example, being stared at by another. As Anderson (1999) and others suggest, stares do not lead to violent retaliation in all circumstances. The characteristics of and
relationship between the parties involved has a large effect on how one responds. Crime is more
likely when an adolescent male is stared at by another adolescent male of roughly the same status
(also see Baron et al. 2001; Cooney 1998; Jacobs and Wright 2006). The setting for the stare is
also critical. For example, a criminal response is more likely when the stare occurs before an audience of other young males in an unsupervised setting (Baron et al. 2001; Cooney 1998; Jacobs
and Wright 2006; Kennedy and Forde 1999; Tedeschi and Felson 1994). These and other
characteristics of the situation are important because they influence the meaning of the stare, particularly whether it is viewed as an intentional affront with potentially severe repressions. They
also influence such things as the pressure for criminal coping and the costs and benefits of such
coping.
Qualitative researchers state that criminal coping is likely when individuals with the above
characteristics experience the above strains in the types of circumstances just described. Such
individuals are confronting severe strains and crime is their only viable coping option. Jacobs
and Wright (2006:4), for example, state that violence is the ‘‘the only realistic mechanism’’ that
street criminals have for responding to attacks. Similarly, Shover (1996:100) states that those who
pursue the party lifestyle frequently reach a crisis state, where ‘‘legitimate options [for maintaining the lifestyle] are few’’ and ‘‘the criminal option may be imbued with almost magical prospects
for reversing or ending the state of discomfort’’ (also see Wright and Topalli 2013).
Designing Quantitative Tests
The challenge, however, is to test these arguments in quantitative research, examining whether
individuals with the above combinations of factors are substantially more likely to engage in
crime. Qualitative researchers focus on individuals with a strong propensity for criminal coping
and their close scrutiny of such individuals allows them to carefully describe those factors that in
combination make criminal coping likely. Quantitative researchers, by contrast, often focus on
broad samples, most of whom have weak propensities for criminal coping, they measure variables
in a gross manner (e.g., have you ever experienced strain X), and they have difficulty describing
WHEN CRIMINAL COPING IS LIKELY
665
how variables combine with one another to affect crime. Rather, variables are typically
considered in isolation from one another (e.g., the effect of variable X on crime, with all other
variables controlled). If quantitative researchers are to better explain criminal coping, they need
to follow the lead of stress researchers and refine their data collection and analysis techniques.
In particular, quantitative tests should focus on those strains that Agnew states are conducive to
crime and, ideally, determine whether individuals view such strains as high in magnitude and
unjust. Most research examines a range of strains, some of which are conducive to crime and some
of which are not. Certain research has focused on particular strains conducive to crime, such as
criminal victimization, bullying, and discrimination. But such strains are often grossly measured;
for example, the frequency, severity, and timing of the victimization are not measured. Also, it is
quite rare to ask about the perceived magnitude and injustice of the strain (although see Baron and
Hartnagel 1997; Rebellon et al. 2009). Further, it is important to consider whether criminogenic
strains cluster together in time. As Slocum and colleagues (2005) demonstrate, strains are more
likely to cause crime in such cases. Among other things, clustering reduces the ability to engage
in legal coping and increases negative emotions. (But as Seery et al. 2010 demonstrate, prior
experience with some strain may reduce the negative effects of current strains.)
These tests should identify those individuals with a high propensity for criminal coping, with
this propensity being determined by their overall standing on those conditioning variables said to
increase criminal coping. At present, researchers typically examine the effect of each conditioning
variable in turn, with other conditioning variables controlled. GST presents a long list of conditioning variables, with additional variables listed above. Surveys rarely measure all of these variables.
Fortunately, it is not necessary to do so. In certain cases, researchers can measure the individual’s
standing on factors that serve as a ‘‘marker’’ for a host of conditioning variables, with such markers including gang membership, living on the street, and perhaps designation as a ‘‘life-course
persistent’’ offender (Moffitt 2007). Researchers can also combine several conditioning variables
into a scale, including variables such as self-control, social control, association with delinquent
peers, and beliefs regarding crime (see Mazerolle and Maahs 2000, for an example). Most variables conducive to criminal coping are correlated with one another, often strongly so. Individuals
who score high on several such variables likely score high on others (e.g., Agnew 2005; Jacobs
and Wright 2006; Melde and Esbensen 2011; Simons and Burt 2011). As such, it is not necessary
to measure the individual’s standing on all such variables. Researchers, however, should attempt to
find surveys that contain adequate variation on key conditioning variables, particularly surveys
that have made a special effort to include those ‘‘hardcore’’ individuals who are very low in social
and self-control, are strongly committed to the code of the street, and belong to gangs.
Finally, researchers should make an effort to measure exposure to those circumstances
conducive to criminal coping. This is particularly important when researchers are determining
whether particular instances of strain lead to crime, such as whether a criminal victimization
prompts criminal coping. The circumstances surrounding the victimization should have a large
effect on the likelihood of crime (e.g., was the victimization committed by a peer in front of
an audience in an unsupervised setting, was the respondent experiencing other strains at the time).
Also, researchers should consider the type of crime in such research since, as noted above,
particular strains may be more conducive to some crimes than others (e.g., victimization may
be more conducive to violence than to income-generating crime). Examining circumstances
and types of crime, however, is less critical if the focus is determining whether the individual’s
overall experience with a range of criminogenic strains is related to their level of offending over an
666
R. AGNEW
extended period. If one is examining criminally disposed individuals over an extended period, it is
likely that such individuals have significant exposure to criminogenic circumstances (Wikstrom
et al. 2010). Also, the broad range of strains examined should affect a broad range of crimes. In
such cases, it is sufficient to examine a single interaction, between the overall measure of strain
and the overall measure of criminal propensity. It is unclear, however, whether this interaction
will have a linear effect on crime. There may be a certain tipping beyond which criminal propensity has a dramatically increased effect on crime.
This argument, however, should not be taken to mean that criminal coping is limited to those
with a strong propensity for such coping. Other individuals may occasionally engage in criminal
coping, particularly if they are in circumstances that strongly favor such coping. The qualitative
research provides a few examples. Anderson (1999), for example, states that members of
‘‘decent’’ families who do not embrace the code of the street will usually try to avoid confrontations and violence, but they will respond to threats with violence in certain situations, particularly
when they are ‘‘backed into a corner’’ (Anderson 1999:64). And ‘‘ambivalent’’ youth, with a
commitment to both conventional and street culture, may respond to threats with violence when
they are in situations where street youth dominate (Anderson 1999:101). The prediction of criminal coping in such cases, however, is more difficult and requires good information on the circumstances surrounding the strains experienced.
At present, surveys do not allow for the types of tests just described. However, it is possible to
provide a rough test of the core arguments presented in this article with existing data. Researchers
should construct a measure of strain exposure, employing one or more of the criminogenic strains
listed by Agnew (2001, 2007). They should construct an overall measure of the propensity to
engage in criminal coping by measuring the individual’s standing on several causes of crime, such
as low self-control, low social control, beliefs regarding crime, and=or association with delinquent peers (see Mazerolle and Maahs 2000). Alternatively, they should measure the individual’s
standing on a factor that serves as a marker for the overall propensity for criminal coping, such as
gang membership. Ideally, they should employ data that contain more than a few individuals who
are high in strain and strongly disposed to criminal coping. Researchers should then determine
whether the overall propensity measure conditions the effect of the strain measure on a general
measure of offending, such as self-reported delinquency over the past year. If the above arguments are correct, a significant conditioning effect should be found.
SUMMARY
GST has amassed much support, with one critical exception. The research examining those variables predicted to condition the effect of strains on crime has produced mixed results. This article drew on the larger stress literature to help explain these mixed results. A given conditioning
variable typically has a small to moderate effect on the choice of coping strategy, both because
there are hundreds of coping strategies from which to choose and the choice of coping strategy is
affected by a range of variables. In order to predict the nature and effectiveness of coping, one
must take account of the nature and interpretation of the stressor, the circumstances surrounding
the stressor, and the individual’s overall standing on a range of individual and social variables.
Building on that insight, this article drew on several literatures to extend GST in a fundamental way. Rather than arguing that particular variables significantly increase the likelihood that
WHEN CRIMINAL COPING IS LIKELY
667
individuals will respond to strains with crime, it is argued that several factors must converge
before criminal coping is likely. Individuals must experience the criminogenic strains listed in
GST; interpret such strains as high in magnitude and unjust; be in circumstances conducive
to criminal coping, as described above; and possess a set of characteristics that are conducive
to criminal coping, as described above. The qualitative research on offenders is compatible with
this argument. And strategies for the quantitative test of this argument were described, including
a strategy that allows for a rough test of this argument with existing data. If supported, this argument would dramatically improve our ability explain, predict, and control crime.
REFERENCES
Agnew, Robert. 1992. ‘‘Foundation for a General Strain Theory of Crime and Delinquency.’’ Criminology 30:47–87.
———. 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(4):123–155.
———. 2005. Why Do Criminals Offend? A General Theory of Crime and Delinquency. New York: Oxford University
Press.
———. 2006. ‘‘Storylines as a Neglected Cause of Crime.’’ Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency
43(2):119–147.
———. 2007. Pressured into Crime: An Overview of General Strain Theory. New York: Oxford.
———. 2011. ‘‘Crime and Time: The Temporal Patterning of Causal Variables.’’ Theoretical Criminology
15(2):115–140.
Agnew, Robert and Timothy Brezina. 2012. Juvenile Delinquency: Causes and Control. New York: Oxford University
Press.
American Psychological Association. 2008. APA Task Force Report on Resilience and Strength in African American
Children and Adolescents. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Anderson, Barbara, Elaine Wethington, and Thomas W. Kamarck. 2011. ‘‘Interview Assessment of Stressor Exposure.’’
Pp. 565–582 in The Handbook of Stress Science: Biology, Psychology, and Health, edited by Richard J. Contrada and
Andrew Baum. New York: Springer.
Anderson, Elijah. 1999. Code of the Street. New York: W. W. Norton.
Aseltine, Robert H., Jr., Susan Gore, and Jennifer Gordon. 2000. ‘‘Life Stress, Anger and Anxiety, and Delinquency: An
Empirical Test of General Strain Theory.’’ Journal of Health and Social Behavior 41:256–275.
Baron, Stephen W. 2007. ‘‘Street Youth, Gender, Financial Strain, and Crime: Exploring Broidy and Agnew’s Extension
to General Strain Theory.’’ Deviant Behavior 28:273–302.
Baron, Stephen W. and Timothy F. Hartnagel. 1997. ‘‘Attributions, Affect, and Crime: Street Youths’ Reactions to
Unemployment.’’ Criminology 35(3):409–434.
Baron, Stephen W., David R. Forde, and Leslie W. Kennedy. 2001. ‘‘Rough Justice: Street Youth and Violence.’’ Journal
of Interpersonal Violence 16(7):662–678.
Brezina, Timothy, Erdal Tekin, and Volkan Topalli. 2009. ‘‘&Might not be a Tomorrow’: A Multi-methods Approach to
Anticipated Early Death and Youth Crime.’’ Criminology 47(4):1091–1129.
Broidy, Lisa. 2001. ‘‘A Test of General Strain Theory.’’ Criminology 39(1):9–33.
Carver, Charles S. 2011. ‘‘Coping.’’ Pp. 221–229 in The Handbook of Stress Science: Biology, Psychology, and Health,
edited by Richard J. Contrada and Andrew Baum. New York: Springer.
Carver, Charles S. and Jennifer Connor-Smith. 2010. ‘‘Personality and Coping.’’ Annual Review of Psychology
61:679–704.
Cicchetti, Dante and Jennifer A. Blender. 2006. ‘‘A Multiple-levels-of-analysis Perspective on Resilience.’’ Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences 1094:248–258.
Clarke, Angela T. 2006. ‘‘Coping with Interpersonal Stress and Psychosocial Health among Children and Adolescents: A
Meta-analysis.’’ Journal of Youth and Adolescence 35(1):11–24.
Cloward, Richard A. and Lloyd E. Ohlin. 1960. Delinquency and Opportunity. New York: Free Press.
Cohen, Albert K. 1955. Delinquent Boys. New York: Free Press.
668
R. AGNEW
Compas, Bruce E., Jennifer K. Connor-Smith, Heidi Saltzman, Alexandra Harding Thomsen, and Martha E. Wadsworth.
2001. ‘‘Coping with Stress during Childhood and Adolescence: Problems, Progress, and Potential in Theory and
Research.’’ Psychological Bulletin 127(1):87–127.
Contrada, Richard J. 2011. ‘‘Stress, Adaptation, and Health.’’ Pp. 1–9 in The Handbook of Stress Science: Biology,
Psychology, and Health, edited by Richard J. Contrada and Andrew Baum. New York: Springer.
Cooney, Mark. 1998. Warriors and Peacemakers: How Third Parties Shape Violence. New York: New York University
Press.
Daigle, Leah E., Kevin M. Beaver, and Michael G. Turner. 2010. ‘‘Resiliency against Victimization: Results from the
National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.’’ Journal of Criminal Justice 38(3):329–337.
Davis, Mary C., Mary H. Burleson, and Denise M. Kruszewski. 2011. ‘‘Gender: Its Relationship to Stressor Exposure, Cognitive Appraisal=Coping Processes, Stress Responses, and Health Outcomes.’’ Pp. 247–261 in The Handbook of Stress
Science: Biology, Psychology, and Health, edited by Richard J. Contrada and Andrew Baum. New York: Springer.
Decker, Scott H. and Barrik Van Winkle. 1996. Life in the Gang. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
De Coster, Stacy and Lisa Kort-Butler. 2006. ‘‘How General is General Strain Theory? Assessing Issues of Determinancy
and Indeterminancy.’’ Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 43(4):297–325.
De Coster, Stacy and Rena Conrnell Zito. 2010. ‘‘Gender and General Strain Theory: The Gendering of Emotional
Experiences and Expressions.’’ Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 26(2):224–245.
Ellwanger, Steven J. 2007. ‘‘Strain, Attribution, and Traffic Delinquency among Young Drivers: Measuring and Testing
General Strain Theory in the Context of Driving.’’ Crime and Delinquency 53(4):523–551.
Felson, Richard B. 1996. ‘‘Big People Hit Little People.’’ Criminology 34(3):433–452.
Felson, Richard B., D. Wayne Osgood, Julie Horney, and Craig Wiernik. 2012. ‘‘Having a Bad Month: General versus
Specific Effects of Stress on Crime.’’ Journal of Quantitative Criminology 28(2):347–363.
Finan, Patrick H., Alex J. Zautra, and Rebecca Wershba. 2011. ‘‘The Dynamics of Emotion in Adaptation to Stress.’’
Pp. 210–220 in The Handbook of Stress Science: Biology, Psychology, and Health, edited by Richard J. Contrada
and Andrew Baum. New York: Springer.
Folkman, Susan and Judith Tedlie Moskowitz. 2004. ‘‘Coping: Pitfalls and Promise.’’ Annual Review of Psychology
55:745–774.
Ganem, Natasha M. 2010. ‘‘The Role of Negative Emotion in General Strain Theory.’’ Journal of Contemporary
Criminal Justice 26(2):167–185.
Giordano, Peggy C., Ryan D. Schroedner, and Stephen A. Cernkovich. 2007. ‘‘Emotions and Crime over the Life
Course.’’ American Journal of Sociology 112(6):1603–1661.
Grant, Kathryn E., Bruce E. Compas, Audrey E. Thurm, Susan D. McMahon, Plly Y. Gipson, Amanda J. Campbell,
Kimberly Krochock, and Robert I. Westerholm. 2006. ‘‘Stressors and Child and Adolescent Psychopathology:
Evidence of Moderating and Mediating Effects.’’ Clinical Psychology Review 26(3):257–283.
Hagan, John and Bill McCarthy. 1997. Mean Streets: Youth Crime and Homelessness. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Hay, Carter and Ryan Meldrum. 2010. ‘‘Bullying Victimization and Adolescent Self-harm: Testing Hypotheses from
General Strain Theory.’’ Journal of Youth and Adolescence 39(5):446–459.
Jacobs, Bruce A. and Richard Wright. 2006. Street Justice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Jang, Sung Joon and Byron R. Johnson. 2005. ‘‘Gender, Religiosity, and Reactions to Strain among African Americans.’’
The Sociological Quarterly 46(2):323–357.
Johnson, Matthew C. and Glen A. Kercher. 2007. ‘‘ADHD, Strain, and Criminal Behavior: A Test of General Strain
Theory.’’ Deviant Behavior 28:131–152.
Katz, Jack. 1988. Seductions of Crime. New York: Basic Books.
Kennedy, Leslie W. and David R. Forde. 1999. When Push Comes to Shove. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Koball, Heather, Robin Dion, Rew Gothro, Maura Bardos, Amy Dworsky, Jiffy Lansing, Matthew Stagner, Danijela
Korom-Djakovic, Carla Herrera, and Alice Elizabeth Manning. 2011. Synthesis of Research and Resources to Support at-risk Youth. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
Mazerolle, Paul and Jeff Maahs. 2000. ‘‘General Strain and Delinquency: An Alternative Examination of Conditioning
Influences.’’ Justice Quarterly 17(4):753–778.
McCaffery, Jeanne M. 2011. ‘‘Genetic Epidemiology of Stress and Gene by Stress Interaction.’’ Pp. 77–85 in The Handbook of Stress Science: Biology, Psychology, and Health, edited by Richard J. Contrada and Andrew Baum. New
York: Springer.
WHEN CRIMINAL COPING IS LIKELY
669
McClelland, Gary H. and Charles M. Judd. 1993. ‘‘Statistical Difficulties of Detecting Interactions and Moderator
Effects.’’ Psychological Bulletin 114(2):376–390.
Melde, Chris and Finn-Aage Esbensen. 2011. ‘‘Gang Membership as a Turning Point in the Life Course.’’ Criminology
49(2):513–552.
Messerschmidt, James W. 1993. Masculinities and Crime. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Miller, Jody. 2001. One of the Guys: Girls, Gangs, and Delinquency. New York: Oxford.
Moffitt, Terrie E. 2007. ‘‘A Review of Research on the Taxonomy of Life-course Persistent versus Adolescence-limited
Antisocial Behavior.’’ Pp. 49–76 in The Cambridge Handbook of Violence and Aggression, edited by Daniel J.
Flannery, Alexander T. Vazsonyi, and Irwin D. Waldman. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Osgood, Wayne D., Janet K. Wilson, Patrick M. O’Malley, Jerald G. Bachman, and Lloyd D. Johnston. 1996. ‘‘Routine
Activities and Individual Deviant Behavior.’’ American Sociological Review 61:635–655.
Penley, Julie A., Joe Tomaka, and John S. Wiebe. 2002. ‘‘The Association of Coping to Physical and Psychological
Health Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Review.’’ Journal of Behavioral Medicine 25(6):551–603.
Rebellon, Cesar J., Nicole Leeper Piquero, Alex R. Piquero, and Sherod Thaxton. 2009. ‘‘Do Frustrated Economic
Expectations and Objective Economic Inequity Promote Crime?’’ European Journal of Criminology 6(1):47–71.
Rutter, Michael. 2006. ‘‘Implications of Resilience Concepts for Scientific Understanding.’’ Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences 1094:1–12.
———. 2007. ‘‘Resilience, Competence, and Coping.’’ Child Abuse & Neglect 31(3):205–209.
Seery, Mark D., E. Alison Holman, and Roxane Cohen Silver. 2010. ‘‘Whatever Does Not Kill Us: Cumulative Lifetime
Adversity, Vulnerability, and Resilience.’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99(6):1025–1041.
Seiffge-Krenke, Inge. 2011. ‘‘Coping with Relationship Stressors: A Decade Review.’’ Journal of Research on
Adolescence 21(1):196–210.
Sharp, Susan F., Toni L. Terling-Watt, Leslie A. Atkins, Jay Trace Gilliam, and Anna Sanders. 2001. ‘‘Purging Behavior
in a Sample of College Females: A Research Note on General Strain Theory.’’ Deviant Behavior 22:171–188.
Shover, Neal. 1996. Great Pretenders: Pursuits and Careers of Persistent Thieves. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Sigfusdottir, Inga Dora, Bryndis Bjork Asgeirsdottir, Gisli H. Gudjonsson, Jon Fridrik Sigurdsson. 2008. ‘‘A Model
of Sexual Abuse’s Effects on Suicidal Behavior and Delinquency: The Role of Emotions as Mediating Factors.’’
Journal of Youth and Adolescence 37(6):699–712.
Simons, Ronald L. and Callie Harbin Burt. 2011. ‘‘Learning to be Bad: Aversive Conditions, Social Schemas, and
Crime.’’ Criminology 49(2):553–598.
Skinner, Ellen A. and Melanie J. Zimmer-Gembeck. 2007. ‘‘The Development of Coping.’’ Annual Review of
Psychology 58:119–144.
Skinner, Ellen A., Kathleen Edge, Jeffrey Altman, and Hayley Sherwood. 2003. ‘‘Searching for the Structure of
Coping: A Review and Critique of Category Systems for Classifying ways of Coping.’’ Psychological Bulletin
129(2):216–269.
Slocum, Lee, Sally S. Simpson, and Douglas A. Smith. 2005. ‘‘Strained Lives and Crime.’’ Criminology
43(4):1067–1110.
Smith, Craig A. and Leslie D. Kirby. 2011. ‘‘The Role of Appraisal and Emotion in Coping and Adaptation.’’ Pp. 255–
291 in The Handbook of Stress Science: Biology, Psychology, and Health, edited by Richard J. Contrada and Andrew
Baum. New York: Springer.
Southwick, Steven M., Meena Vythilingam, and Dennis S. Charney. 2005. ‘‘The Psychobiology of Depression and
Resilience to Stress.’’ Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 1:255–291.
Tedeschi, James T. and Richard B. Felson. 1994. Violence, Aggression, and Coercive Actions. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Thornberry, Terence P., Marvin D. Krohn, Alan J. Lizotte, Carolyn A. Smith, and Kimberly Tobin. 2003. Gangs and
Delinquency in Developmental Perspective. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Topalli, Volkan. 2005. ‘‘When Being Good Is Bad: An Expansion of Neutralization Theory.’’ Criminology
43(3):797–835.
Uchino, Bert N. and Wendy Birmingham. 2011. ‘‘Stress and Support Processes.’’ Pp. 111–121 in The Handbook of
Stress Science: Biology, Psychology, and Health, edited by Richard J. Contrada and Andrew Baum. New York:
Springer.
Wachs, Theodore D. 2006. ‘‘Contributions of Temperament to Buffering and Sensitization Processes in Children’s
Development.’’ Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1094:28–39.
670
R. AGNEW
Weisburd, David, Nancy A. Morris, and Elizabeth R. Groff. 2009. ‘‘Hot Spots of Juvenile Crime.’’ Journal of
Quantitative Criminology 25(4):443–467.
Wikstrom, Per-Olof H., Vania Ceccato, Beth Hardie, and Kyle Treiber. 2010. ‘‘Activity Fields and the Dynamics of
Crime.’’ Journal of Quantitative Criminology 26(1):55–87.
Williams, Paula G., Timothy W. Smith, Heather E. Gunn, and Bert N. Uchino. 2011. ‘‘Personality and Stress: Individual
Differences in Exposure Reactivity, Recovery, and Restoration.’’ Pp. 231–245 in The Handbook of Stress Science:
Biology, Psychology, and Health, edited by Richard J. Contrada and Andrew Baum. New York: Springer.
Wright, Richard and Volkan Topalli. 2013. ‘‘Choosing Street Crime.’’ Pp. 461–474 in The Oxford Handbook of Criminological Theory, edited by Francis T. Cullen and Pamela Wilcox. New York: Oxford University Press.
ROBERT AGNEW is Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Sociology at Emory University.
His research focuses on the causes of crime and delinquency, particularly general strain theory,
the underlying assumptions of crime theories, and the potential impact of climate change on
crime.