PULLING IT ALL TOGETHER:
INTEGRATED THEORIES OF
CRIME
Doing Theoretical Integration
•
Up to now, we have examined many micro- and some macrolevel theories including the three major theories in
contemporary criminology
1.
Learning
2.
Anomie/strain
3.
Control
•
Each of the above theories had some empirical support and
was able to explain some of the variation in crime
•
Thus, some have argued that we should integrate theories
•
To integrate theories is to formulate relationships among them
•
Do not just list the variables from the different theories; rather, describe
the relationships among the variables
Doing Theoretical Integration
• Most common way to integrate theories is by using the “end-to-
end” approach
• Describe the temporal ordering between variables so that the
dependent variables of some theories constitute the independent
variables of others
• Example:
strain  joining of a delinquent subculture  crime
• There are multiple integrated theories
• Lombroso’s work combining psychological, biological, and social
variables
• Theories that argue there is an interaction between individual traits
and the social environment
• Shaw and McKay combine strain, learning, and control theories
Doing Theoretical Integration
• Most integrated theories have been at the micro-level;
however, a few have attempted to integrate macro-level
theories
• Macro-level theories try to explain crime rates in groups
• One macro-level integrated theory is institutional-anomie theory
• Integrates Merton’s theory and social disorganization theory
Doing Theoretical Integration
• Some attempt to integrate macro- and micro-level theories
• Describe how macro-level variables influence the criminal behavior
of individuals
• However, some oppose the integration of theories, especially
Hirschi
• The most common objection is that the theories being integrated
are based on opposing assumptions, and thus one theory would
have to be substantially altered
• Example: strain theory and control theory have different assumptions
about criminal motivation
• Argue, instead, that we should focus on the development of
individual theories
Thornberry: “Toward an Interactional
Theory of Delinquency”
• Combines Hirschi’s social bond and differential
association/learning theories using end-to-end integration
• Thornberry, however, calls this theoretical elaboration and not
integration
• Arguing there is no requirement to resolve disputes among other
theories
• Weak social bonds, association with delinquent peers, and
delinquent values contribute to delinquent behavior
• However, he still does describe how macro-level variables may
affect the micro-level variables in his theory
• Draws attention to developmental processes and reciprocal effects
of variables
• Describes how variables in his theory change in importance over
the life course and uses the theory to explain career patterns in
crime
Thornberry: “Toward an Interactional
Theory of Delinquency”
• Control theory argues delinquency emerges when the
social and cultural constraints over human conduct are
substantially attenuated
• There is a natural impulse toward crime
• Learning theory posits there are no natural impulses
toward crime
• Delinquent behavior must be learned through the same processes
and mechanisms as conforming behavior
Thornberry: “Toward an Interactional
Theory of Delinquency”
•
Argue control and learning theories are limited in that:
1.
They rely on unidirectional rather than reciprocal causal
structures
2.
They are nondevelopmental, specifying causal models for only
a narrow age range, usually mid-adolescence
3.
They tend to assume uniform causal effects throughout the
social structure
Thornberry: “Toward an Interactional
Theory of Delinquency”
• Interactional theory attempts to address the three
limitations
• The basic premise of interactional theory is that
human behavior occurs in social interaction and can
therefore best be explained by models that focus on
interactive processes
• Argues people interact with other people and institutions and
that behavioral outcomes are formed by that interactive
process
Thornberry: “Toward an Interactional
Theory of Delinquency”
• Interactional theory develops from the same intellectual
tradition as the traditional theories
• Asserts the fundamental cause of delinquency lies in weakening
social constraints over the conduct of the individual, which allows
for a much wider array of behavior
• For the freedom from weakened bonds to lead to delinquency, an
interactive setting in which delinquency is learned, performed, and
reinforced is required
Thornberry: “Toward an Interactional
Theory of Delinquency”
•
An interactional theory must respond to two overriding issues:
1.
How are traditional social constraints over behavior weakened
2.
How is the resulting freedom channeled into delinquent patterns
•
Interactional theory focuses on the interrelationship of six
concepts:
1.
Attachment to parents (control)
2.
Commitment to school (control)
3.
Belief in conventional values (control)
4.
Associations with delinquent peers (learning)
5.
Adopting delinquent values (learning)
6.
Engaging in delinquent behavior
Thornberry: “Toward an Interactional
Theory of Delinquency”
• Model specification
• Presents a causal model allowing for reciprocal relationships among
the six concepts
• The model below refers to the period of early adolescence from about ages 11 to
13 when delinquent careers are beginning
Thornberry: “Toward an Interactional
Theory of Delinquency”
•
Model specification of social learning variables
•
The specification of causal effects begins by examining three concepts of
social learning theories:
1.
Delinquent peers
2.
Delinquent values
3.
Delinquent behavior
•
Traditional social learning theories specify a causal order among these
variables in which:
Delinquent  Delinquent  Delinquent
Peers
Values
Behavior
•
However, other theoretical perspectives and empirical work has suggested reversing
the causal order suggesting those who engage in delinquent behavior seek out
delinquent friends
•
Thornberry argues that we should not focus on the unidirectional nature of this
relationship and instead see it as reciprocal:
Delinquent  Delinquent
Peers
Behavior
Thornberry: “Toward an Interactional
Theory of Delinquency”
• Model specification of social learning variables
• See similar arguments with the other social learning variables
• Social learning theory states:
Delinquent  Delinquent and Delinquent  Delinquent
Peers
Values
Values
Behavior
• However, other theories postulate:
Delinquent  Delinquent and Delinquent  Delinquent
Values
Peers
Behavior
Values
• Again, Thornberry argues there is a reciprocal effect among these
concepts:
Delinquent  Delinquent and Delinquent  Delinquent
Peers
Values
Values
Behavior
Thornberry: “Toward an Interactional
Theory of Delinquency”
• Model specification of social learning variables
• Although each of the social learning concepts appears to
have reciprocal interrelationships, the strengths of the
associations between the variables and subsequent
delinquent behavior are not equal during early adolescence
• Beliefs that delinquent conduct is acceptable are emerging
but not fully developed at this time, thus are viewed more as
an effect than a cause of delinquent behavior
• Beliefs are seen as being produced by delinquent peers and
behavior
• However, as these beliefs/values emerge they
have feedback effects and further reinforce
the behavior and association with delinquent
peers
Thornberry: “Toward an Interactional
Theory of Delinquency”
•
Model specification of social control variables
•
The primary mechanisms that bond adolescents to the
conventional world are:
1.
Attachment to parents
2.
Commitment to school
3.
Belief in conventional values
•
During early adolescence, family is the most salient arena
for social interaction and involvement, and thus has a
stronger influence on the other aspects of the youth’s life
Thornberry: “Toward an Interactional
Theory of Delinquency”
•
Model specification of social control variables
•
Having strong affective bonds or attachment to parents is
predicted to affect four other variables:
1.
Commitment to school
2.
Belief in conventional values
3.
Lack of association with delinquent others
4.
Lack of delinquent behavior
•
However, not being committed to school, having delinquent values,
associating with delinquent peers, and engaging in delinquent
behavior can diminish the level of attachment between parent and
child because these factors are contrary to parental expectations
•
These behaviors suggest the child does not care about the parents’
wishes and jeopardizes the affective bond between the parents and child
Thornberry: “Toward an Interactional
Theory of Delinquency”
•
Model specification of social control variables
•
Belief in conventional values is involved in two different causal
loops:
1.
It strongly affects commitment to school and then is affected by
commitment to school

2.
It affects associations with delinquent peers

•
Want to do well in school and when do well, it reinforces beliefs in
conventional values
If do not believe in conventional values, more apt to associate with
delinquent others, who then further attenuate their beliefs in conventional
values
Belief in conventional values does not have a particularly strong
impact on the initiation of delinquent behavior

Not affected by delinquent behavior, nor related to delinquent values

Appears to be quite invariant regardless of class or delinquency status
Thornberry: “Toward an Interactional
Theory of Delinquency”
•
Model specification of social control variables
•
Commitment to school is involved in reciprocal loops with the other
bonding variables:
1.
Kids who are attached to their parents are more likely to be committed to
and succeed in school, which reinforces close ties to their parents
2.
Youths who believe in conventional values are likely to be committed to
school, and success in school reinforces these beliefs
•
Commitment to school also has direct effects on two delinquency variables
•
Students committed to success in school are unlikely to associate with
delinquent peers or engage in serious delinquent behavior
•
Have built a stake in conformity and do not want to jeopardize their accomplishments
•
Commitment to school has an indirect effect on delinquent values via
association with delinquent peers and delinquent behavior
•
Commitment to school is affected by each of the “delinquent variables”
•
Youths who accept values consistent with delinquent behavior, associate
with delinquent peers, and engage in delinquent behavior are unlikely to be
committed to school
Thornberry: “Toward an Interactional
Theory of Delinquency”
• Model specification of social control variables
• Keep in mind that attachment to parents, commitment to school,
and belief in conventional values are not static attributes
• Rather, these concepts interact with one another during the
developmental process
• Remember, these variables have reciprocal effects with each other
and with the learning variables
Thornberry: “Toward an Interactional
Theory of Delinquency”
• Developmental extensions
• Middle adolescence (approximately 15–16)
• Represents the highest rates of involvement in
delinquency and is the reference period for most
crime
theories of
• There are some differences in the relationships
between the variables presented for early adolescents
• In middle adolescence, attachment to parents is involved in few strong relationships
• Still has an important impact on school commitment and preventing associations with
delinquent peers, but the overall strength of parental attachment is weak for this age
group
• Most salient variables are external from the home and associated with the youth’s peer
and school networks
• There is an increased importance of delinquent values as a causal factor
• Seen as much as a cause as an effect of delinquent behavior
• Delinquent values are strongly articulated at this time and are major reinforcers of both
delinquent associations and behavior
• Youths who have these values are less likely to be committed to school and less likely
to be attached to parents with the feedback effect to school stronger than the feedback
effect to the family
Thornberry: “Toward an Interactional
Theory of Delinquency”
•
Developmental extensions
•
Later adolescence (approximately 18–20)
•
Two new variables are added at this time:
1.
Commitment to conventional activities (e.g., military, work, college)
2.
Transition from the family of origin to one’s own family (e.g., marriage, parenthood)

Attachment to parents and commitment to school only have minor effects at
this point and become exogenous variables

Delinquent values, delinquent peers, and delinquent behavior still are
embedded in a causal loop
•
Loop likely to occur among adolescents who, at earlier ages, were freed from the
controlling influences of parents and school and via feedback loops delinquent peers,
values, and behavior further alienate the youth from parents and diminish
commitment to school
•
•
Once this spiral begins, the probability of sustained delinquency increases
If this situation continues uninterrupted, it yields higher and higher rates of
crime as subjects mature, which is inconsistent with the desistance that
often occurs at this age period
Thornberry: “Toward an Interactional
Theory of Delinquency”
• Developmental extensions
• Later adolescence (approximately 18–20)
• Developmental approaches explain desistence by saying that as
developmental processes unfold, life circumstances change,
developmental milestones are met, new social roles are created,
new networks of attachments and commitments emerge
and
• These changes are represented by commitment to conventional
activities and commitment to family
• Commitment to conventional activity is influenced by a number of variables (e.g., earlier
attachment to parents, commitment to school, belief in conventional values, work, college,
military service) and lowers the chance of delinquent behavior and associations with
delinquent peers because it builds up a stake in conformity
• The commitment to conventional activities tends to resonate throughout the system and
reduce criminal involvement
• Commitment to family has similar, but weaker, effects than commitment to conventional
activity
• Reduces delinquent associations and delinquent values and increases commitment to
conventional activities
• These changes, however, do not occur in all cases
• The more serious and prolonged delinquent careers, the more likely delinquency
continues into adulthood
Thornberry: “Toward an Interactional
Theory of Delinquency”
• Structural effects
• Structural variables, including race, class, sex, and
community of residence refer to the person’s location in the
structure of social roles and statuses
• Thornberry only examines social class
• Focuses on lower class, working lower class, and the middle class
• Lower class: chronically or sporadically unemployed, receive
welfare, subsist at or below the poverty level
• Working lower class: stable work patterns, training for semi-skilled
jobs, incomes that allow for some economic stability
• Middle class: achieved some kind of economic success and
stability, can reasonably expect to remain at that level or improve
their standing over time
Thornberry: “Toward an Interactional
Theory of Delinquency”
•
Structural effects
•
Social class affects the interactional variables and the behavioral
trajectories of individuals
•
Lower-class youths are more likely than middle-class youths to have:
1.
Disrupted family processes and environments
2.
Poorer preparation for school
3.
Belief structures influenced by the traditions of the American lower class
4.
Greater exposure to neighborhoods with high rates of crime
•
Expect children from the lower class to be initially less bonded to
conventional society and more exposed to delinquent values, peers, and
behaviors
•
As one moves toward the working lower class, both the likelihood and
potency of the factors just listed decrease but are still not as strong as the
middle class
•
Middle-class youth start with greater stability and economic security, which
reduces their initial involvement with delinquency
Thornberry: “Toward an Interactional
Theory of Delinquency”
• Structural effects
• Thus, initial values of interactional variables are
systematically related to the social class of origin
• Youths from the lowest class have the highest probability of
moving forward on a trajectory of increasing delinquency
• Youths from the working lower class have more volatile
behavioral trajectories and less certain outcomes because the
initial values on these interactional variables are mixed
• Youths from the middle class will move toward a conforming
lifestyle
• Social class also impacts the development over time of the
interactional variables
Extending Thornberry’s Interactional
Theory
• Tentative data support parts of Thornberry’s theory, especially the
reciprocal relationships between the learning variables and
delinquency
• Thornberry and Krohn expanded interactional theory in 2005
• Consider a broader range of age periods, including preschool and
childhood years
• Discuss the role of biological factors and individual traits
• Argue a small group of individuals start engaging in delinquency during
preschool and many of these people become high-rate offenders over
much of their lives
• Claim this is due partly to individual traits that are a function of both biological
factors and the social environment
• Examples: parenting problems, poverty
• People who begin offending in adolescence are less likely to have these
traits or are less likely to come from extremely deprived environments
More Integrated Theories
• Akers argues his social learning theory is more general than other
micro-level theories in sociology
• Conceptually integrates other theories
• Argues the concepts from these theories can be rephrased using the
language of social learning theory
• Hirschi’s bond of commitment essentially refers to negative punishment
• Claims social learning theory can be used to make predictions
about the relationships between these concepts and their effect on
deviance
• Acknowledges that these predictions differ from those of the original
theories (e.g., control theory sees any attachment to others as
protective, whereas learning theory sees attachment to only
conventional others as protective)
Cullen: “Social Support and Crime”
• Cullen’s social support theory does not use end-to-end or
conceptual integration
• Rather, points to a central causal process—the extent to which
social support is provided to individuals—that affects crime for
reasons related to strain, social control, and social learning theories
• First to draw explicit attention to social support
• Social support has a direct causal effect on crime
• Also, it has a causal effect on other variables that influence crime, such as
social control
• Further, it conditions the effects of other variables (e.g., strain) on crime
• Integrates by highlighting and elaborating on a common theme in
several crime theories
Cullen: “Social Support and Crime”
•
Cullen’s goal is to make social support an organizing concept for
criminology
•
Argues there are four major dimensions of support:
1.
The distinction between objective delivery and the perception of support
2.
Support is usually divided into two categories: (a) instrumental and (b)
expressive
•
Instrumental support involves the use of the relationship as a means to a
goal
•
Expressive support involves the use of relationship as an end as well as a
means
•
Includes affective functions of support
3.
Support occurs on different social levels (micro- and macro-level support)
4.
Support can be delivered through formal agencies and informal relations
Cullen: “Social Support and Crime”
•
Propositions
America has higher rates of serious crime than other
industrialized nations because it is a less supportive society
1.
•
The U.S. is not structurally or culturally organized to be socially
supportive
•
Societies differ in their communitarian quality
•
•
Extent to which societies have the qualities of mutual help and trust
•
The U.S. is low in communitarianism and has a culture of
excessive individualism
Corollary:
a.
The more a society is deficient in the support needed, the higher
its crime rate will be
•
The U.S. has a poor welfare system and is less supportive,
making informal controls less effective
Cullen: “Social Support and Crime”
•
Propositions
2.
The less social support there is in a community, the higher
the crime rate will be
• Governmental assistance to the poor tends to lessen
violent crime across ecological units
• Crime rates are higher in areas with higher rates of family
disruption, weak friendship networks, and low participation
in local voluntary organizations
• Higher crime rates in areas where there is social and
cultural disinvestment
•
Reduces the social buffer or human capital needed to absorb the
shock or cushion the effect of uneven economic growth and
periodic recessions
Cullen: “Social Support and Crime”
•
Propositions
3. The more support a family provides, the less likely it is
that a person will engage in crime
•
Empirical evidence supports this
•
Delinquency is related inversely to child–parent involvement
•
Parental rejection is positively related to delinquency
•
Delinquent boys are more likely to have parents who did not think
about their futures
•
Families are a source of social capital
•
Be careful of the fallacy of autonomy
•
The belief that what goes on in the family can be separated
from the forces that affect it from the outside
Cullen: “Social Support and Crime”
•
Propositions
3. The more support a family provides, the less likely it is
that a person will engage in crime
•
Two corollaries:
a.
The more support that is given to families, the less crime
will occur
 Can be informational, emotional, material, or instrumental support
 Most successful interventions offer more than one type of support
b.
Changes in the levels of support for and by families have
contributed since the 1960s to increases in crime and to
the concentration of serious violence in high-risk, inner-city
neighborhoods
Cullen: “Social Support and Crime”
•
Propositions
The more social support in a person’s social network, the less
crime will occur
4.
•
Supports can mitigate stress
•
Can prevent stress from arising or can lessen negative consequences if
stresses should emerge
Social support lessens the effects of exposure to criminogenic
strains
5.
•
Helps cope with criminogenic strains
Cullen: “Social Support and Crime”
•
Propositions
Across the life cycle, social support increases the likelihood that
offenders will turn away from a criminal pathway
6.
•
Marriage provides material and emotional support
•
Employment provides social support
Anticipation of a lack of social support increases criminal
involvement
7.
•
Among youths, informal relationships can provide support and
allow them to feel part of something, rather than being isolated
•
Isolation may lead the individual to believe he/she will always
lack the instrumental and expressive supports needed to
change the circumstances he/she is in
Cullen: “Social Support and Crime”
•
Propositions
Giving social support lessens involvement in crime
8.
•
Less likely to be involved in crime when devoted to
spouses/children
•
Women’s traditional responsibility for the delivery of social
support and nurturance to others may explain the dramatically
lower crime rates for women
Crime is less likely when social support for conformity exceeds
social support for crime
9.
•
There is differential social support and, when the support for
conformity outweighs social support for crime, crime is less likely
•
Corollary:
a. Social support from conformist sources is most likely to reduce
criminal involvement
Cullen: “Social Support and Crime”
•
Propositions
10. Social support often is a precondition for effective social control
•
Control can be effective in the context of support (Braithwaite’s
reintegrative shaming theory)
•
Family support of offenders during and after incarceration improves
the chances of a successful completion of parole
•
Warm parenting and restrictiveness has the best results
Cullen: “Social Support and Crime”
• Cullen’s theory is compatible with much of the
existing data and has received tentative support in
preliminary empirical tests
• At the macro-level, studies suggest that crime rates are lower
in countries and communities that provide more social
support (e.g., welfare assistance, unemployment insurance,
high levels of state spending on healthcare and education,
private charitable contributions)
• Directly reduces crime rates and reduces the effects of
economic deprivation and inequality on crime rates
• At the micro-level, studies suggest that people
who receive support from conventional others
are less likely to engage in crime
Tittle’s Control Balance Theory
• Argues the central causal process for crime is the amount
of control imbalance experienced by the individual and
control imbalance affects crime for reasons related to
several theories, especially strain, control, and
deterrence/rational choice theories
Tittle’s Control Balance Theory
• A control imbalance occurs when individuals are subject
to more or less control than they exercise over others
• Control deficits—subject to more control than they can exercise
• May engage in deviance to reduce such deficits
• Control surpluses—subject to less control than they can exercise
• May engage in deviance to assert or extend their control
• Individual factors (e.g., IQ, interpersonal skills) and social factors
(e.g., gender, age, class) influence the degree of control deficit or
surplus one experiences
Tittle’s Control Balance Theory
• Whether an individual who experiences control imbalances engages
in deviance depends on several factors
• Examples: desire for autonomy, blockage of goals, situational
provocations, opportunity to engage in delinquency,
benefit/cost ratio, moral beliefs
• Explains his theory can explain the known facts about crime such as
the relationship between sex, age, race, and marital status on crime
• Research on whether control imbalances are more likely to affect
crime under the conditions described by Tittle has produced mixed
results
• Certain research finds that control imbalances have a larger
effect on crime/deviance when self-control is low, while other
research does not find this
Agnew: “Why Criminals Offend: A General Theory
of Crime and Delinquency”
•
Does not focus on a central causal variable or use endto-end integration
•
Employs a variable-centered approach to integration
•
Attempts to describe those variables that have
relatively large, direct effects on crime
Agnew: “Why Criminals Offend: A General Theory
of Crime and Delinquency”
• Argues clusters of variables affect crime related to all of
the leading theories of crime
• Describes how each of the clusters of variables are
related to one another and work together to affect crime
• Argues the clusters are reciprocally related to one another
Agnew: “Why Criminals Offend: A General Theory
of Crime and Delinquency”
•
Crime is most likely when the constraints against
crime are low and the motivations for crime are
high
•
Constraints against crime refer to those factors that hold
individuals back or restrain them from committing crime
•
Several major types of constraints:
1.
External control
2.
Stake in conformity
3.
Internal control
Agnew: “Why Criminals Offend: A General Theory
of Crime and Delinquency”
•
External control
•
Refers to the likelihood that others will detect and
sanction criminal behavior
•
Examples: police, parents grounding you, friends
shunning you, school officials expelling you
•
Individuals are high in external control to the extent that
others:
1. Set clear rules for them that prohibit crime and related
behavior
2. Monitor their behavior to detect rule violations
3. Consistently sanction their rule violations in a meaningful
manner
Agnew: “Why Criminals Offend: A General Theory
of Crime and Delinquency”
•
Stake in conformity
•
The amount one has to lose if caught and punished
•
Investment in conventional society
•
Individuals have a large stake in conformity to the extent that:
1.
They have strong emotional bonds to conventional others
2.
They engage in positively valued activities with conventional others
or receive positive benefits from interacting with conventional others
3.
They are doing well in school, like school, expect to get an
advanced education, or have obtained an advanced education
4.
They have “good” jobs that they like or they expect to get such jobs
5.
They have an excellent reputation among conventional others
Agnew: “Why Criminals Offend: A General Theory
of Crime and Delinquency”
• Internal control
• Believe that crime is wrong or immoral
• Have been taught this belief from early in life by parents, teachers,
neighbors, religious figures, and others
• Internalize these beliefs
• Have high levels of self-control
Agnew: “Why Criminals Offend: A General Theory
of Crime and Delinquency”
•
The motivations for crime
•
Refer to those factors that entice or pressure individuals to
engage in crime
•
Grouped into two categories:
1.
2.
Factors that entice or pull individuals into crime

Rational choice, routine activities, and social learning theories

Taught to engage in crime in three major ways: (a) reinforced for crime,
(b) exposed to successful criminal models, and (c) taught beliefs
favorable to crime

Come to view crime as desirable or appropriate
Factors that pressure or push individuals to engage in crime

Strain theory

Strain leads to negative emotions which creates a pressure for corrective
action which could be crime
Agnew: “Why Criminals Offend: A General Theory
of Crime and Delinquency”
• Individual and social variables affect the constraints
and motivations for crime
• Focus on the variables with large, direct effects on crime
• Groups the causes into clusters organized around five life
domains:
1.Personality traits of low self-control and irritability (self)
2.Poor parenting practices and no/bad marriages (family)
3.Negative school experiences and limited education (school)
4.Peer delinquency (peer)
5.Unemployment and work in “bad” jobs (work)
Agnew: “Why Criminals Offend: A General Theory
of Crime and Delinquency”
• Self (low self-control and irritability)
• Individuals who possess the super-trait of low self-control are
impulsive, giving little thought to the long-term consequences
of their behavior, and like exciting, risky activities
• Individuals who possess the super-trait of irritability are likely
to experience events as aversive, attribute these events to
malicious behavior, experience intense emotional reactions
(especially anger), and show little concern for the feelings
and rights of others
Agnew: “Why Criminals Offend: A General Theory
of Crime and Delinquency”
• Family (poor parenting and no/poor marriages)
• Poor parental supervision/discipline, weak bonds between
parents and juveniles, family conflict, failure to provide social
support, and having criminal parents affect delinquency
• When juveniles become adults, the poor parenting variables
become less relevant to the explanation of crime
• As adults, failure to marry and divorce are more relevant
Agnew: “Why Criminals Offend: A General Theory
of Crime and Delinquency”
• School (negative school experiences and limited
education)
• Negative bonding to teachers and school, poor academic
performance, little time on homework, low educational and
occupational goals, poor supervision and discipline, and low
social support from teachers are the key variables
• Education influences the constraints against and the
motivations for crime primarily through its effect
on the individual’s work, marital life, and peer
associations
Agnew: “Why Criminals Offend: A General Theory
of Crime and Delinquency”
• Peers (peer delinquency)
• Having close friends who engage in crime, having frequent conflicts
with and being abused by peers, and spending much time with
peers in unstructured, unsupervised activities are the key variables
• Peer delinquency is less common
among adults
Agnew: “Why Criminals Offend: A General Theory
of Crime and Delinquency”
• Work (unemployment and bad jobs)
• Unemployment, poor supervision/discipline, negative bonding to
work, poor work performance, poor working conditions, and having
criminal co-workers are related to delinquency
Agnew: “Why Criminals Offend: A General Theory
of Crime and Delinquency”
•
The five life domains generally have large effects on the
individual’s level of offending
•
However, some life domains have larger effects than others,
depending on the individual’s stage in life
1. Childhood
•
Low self-control/irritability and poor parenting have the largest
effects
Adolescence
2.
•
Low self-control/irritability and peer delinquency have the largest
effects
Adulthood
3.
•
Low self-control/irritability, peer delinquency, no/bad marriages, and
unemployment/bad jobs have the largest effects
Agnew: “Why Criminals Offend: A General Theory
of Crime and Delinquency”
• The life domains not only affect crime but also affect
one another
• Calls this the web of crime
• Problems in the life domains seem to mutually reinforce and
contribute to one another
• Many criminals are trapped in the web of crime
• Their personality, family, peer, school, and work experiences
are all conducive to crime
• Tend to offend at high rates
• However, some escape this web when they make the transition to
adulthood, usually because they get involved in good marriages or
become bonded to decent jobs
Agnew: “Why Criminals Offend: A General Theory
of Crime and Delinquency”
•
Web of crime
•
Irritability and low self-control
•
Increases the chance of poor parenting, failure to marry, negative
school experiences, obtaining little education, associating with
delinquent peers, and being unemployed or employed in bad jobs
•
These effects occur for four reasons:
1.
People with these traits devote little effort to conventional pursuits and
prefer environments conducive to crime
2.
They often fail at conventional pursuits and are forced into environments
conducive to crime
3.
They provoke negative reactions from others
4.
They are more likely to perceive given environments in ways conducive to
crime
Agnew: “Why Criminals Offend: A General Theory
of Crime and Delinquency”
• Web of crime
• Poor parenting
• Have relatively moderate to large effects on the other life domains, with
parenting practices during childhood being especially important
• Negative school experiences
• Increase low self-control, poor parenting practices, peer delinquency,
unemployment/bad jobs, and no/bad marriages
• Peer delinquency
• Increases low self-control, poor parenting, negative school experiences,
no/bad marriages, and unemployment/bad jobs
• Most pronounced during adolescence and becomes less common among
adults
Agnew: “Why Criminals Offend: A General Theory
of Crime and Delinquency”
• Web of crime
• No/bad jobs
• Work occupies a central role in the lives of adults
• Overall, each life domain directly and indirectly affects crime
through its effects on other domains
Agnew: “Why Criminals Offend: A General Theory
of Crime and Delinquency”
• Crime affects its causes, and prior crime directly affects
subsequent crime
• Prior crime affects subsequent crime largely because of its effects
on the five life domains
• Engaging in crime often contributes to low self-control/irritability,
poor parenting, no/bad marriages, negative school experiences,
peer delinquency, and no/bad jobs
• Prior crime also affects the constraints against and motivations for
crime
• Reduces fear of external sanctions, increases certain types of strain,
and provides certain benefits to the individual
Agnew: “Why Criminals Offend: A General Theory
of Crime and Delinquency”
•
Crime affects its causes, and prior crime directly affects
subsequent crime
•
This draws heavily on labeling theory
•
Individuals who are labeled are more likely to engage in crime
•
Others treat the labeled person as criminal
•
Conventional others reject or treat them badly, and employers do not want
to hire them
•
The labeled individual associates with other labeled individuals
•
The label leads to a reduction in the constraints against and an increase in
the motivation for crime
•
Takes into account those that have been both formally and
informally labeled
Agnew: “Why Criminals Offend: A General Theory
of Crime and Delinquency”
•
The effect of prior crime on subsequent crime depends on:
How others react to the crime
1.
•
Four key ways others might react:
a.
Fail to respond to the crime
b.
Respond in a harsh/rejecting manner
c.
Respond in an approving/supportive manner
d.
Respond in a manner that firmly rejects the crime, but is accepting of the person
•
The first three increase the likelihood prior crime would lead to subsequent crime,
while the last one decreases the likelihood
•
Can experience more than one type of response
•
The response experienced is largely determined by the individual’s standing on the
five life domains, with those with criminogenic life domains being more likely to
experience the first three responses
•
Less likely to have crimes detected
•
More likely to have already been labeled “bad“ or “criminal”
•
Others do not care about these people
•
More likely to associate with criminal others
Agnew: “Why Criminals Offend: A General Theory
of Crime and Delinquency”
•
The effect of prior crime on subsequent crime depends on:
The characteristics of the criminal
2.
The individual’s response is influenced by his/her standing on the five life
domains
•
•
Those low in self-control/high in irritability, who have poor parenting, have negative
school experiences, and are high in peer delinquency are more likely to react to their
crime in a way that increases subsequent crime
•
Find crime exciting
•
More likely to benefit from crime
•
See crime as an effective solution
•
Less deterred by negative reactions
•
Less concerned about the negative consequences
•
Less to lose from crime
•
More likely to become angry at the negative reactions of others
Agnew: “Why Criminals Offend: A General Theory
of Crime and Delinquency”
•
The causes of crime interact with one another
•
The effect of each life domain is influenced or conditioned
by the individual’s standing on the other life domains
•
One life domain is likely to lead to crime when the other life
domains are also conducive to crime
•
•
Variables in each life domain affect both the constraints against
and the motivations for crime
Given these facts, a cause is more likely to increase crime
when other causes are present because the individual is:
1. Freer to engage in crime because their constraints are lower
2. More likely to cope in a negative manner
3. More likely to view crime as a desirable or appropriate response
Agnew: “Why Criminals Offend: A General Theory
of Crime and Delinquency”
• The life domains interact by affecting one another
• Problems in one domain increase the likelihood of problems in
another domain
• Do not always lead to problems because the effect of one life domain on
another is influenced by or conditioned by the remaining life domains
Agnew: “Why Criminals Offend: A General Theory
of Crime and Delinquency”
• The causes tend to have nonlinear effects on crime
and one another
• Linear effects occur when a given increase in a causal
variable always leads to the same amount of change in a
dependent variable, like crime
• Can be plotted on a graph in a straight line
• Nonlinear effects cannot be plotted with a straight line
• Must be plotted with a curved or zig-zagged line
• Nonlinear effects are most common
• Most causes have to pass a certain
threshold point before they start to have
a meaningful effect on crime
Agnew: “Why Criminals Offend: A General Theory
of Crime and Delinquency”
• Effects are largely contemporaneous in nature,
although each cause has a large lagged effect on
crime
• Contemporaneous effects refer to effects that occur within a
relatively short period of time
• Lagged effects take a longer time for the effect to emerge
• The life domains mainly have contemporaneous effects
because crime is largely a function of current constraints and
motivations
• Most people respond to the conditions they are currently
experiencing
• However, each cause also has a large lagged effect on itself
Agnew: “Why Criminals Offend: A General Theory
of Crime and Delinquency”
•
An overview of the general theory
1. Crime is caused by five clusters of variables, organized into the
life domains of self, family, school, peers, and work that vary
over the life course
2. The variables in each domain increase crime by reducing the
constraints against crime and increasing the motivations for
crime
3. Each life domain affects the other domains, although some
effects are stronger than others and effect sizes often change
over the life course
4. Prior crime has a direct effect on subsequent crime and an
indirect effect through the life domains
5.
The life domains interact in affecting crime and one another
6.
The life domains have nonlinear and largely contemporaneous
effects on crime and one another
Agnew: “Why Criminals Offend: A General Theory
of Crime and Delinquency”
• A range of outside factors affect the individual’s
standing on the life domains
• Focuses on the effects of age, sex, race/ethnicity, parent’s
SES, and community characteristics
• These have large direct effects on all or most of the life
domains
• The life domains are more likely to be conducive to crime
when individuals are in the adolescent years, are male, are
African American or members of certain other racial/ethnic
groups, have parents who are low in SES, and reside in poor,
inner-city communities
• These factors allow the general theory to explain group differences in
crime rates, with such differences being due to the fact that groups
differ in their standing on the life domains
Robinson and Beaver’s Theory
• A variable-centered approach
• Incorporates variables at the cellular, organ, organism,
group, community/organization, and societal levels
• Variables impact one another and interact in their effect
on crime
• Genetic and environmental factors interact in their effect
on crime
• Pays close attention to biological factors
• Embraces complexity focusing on a large number of
causes at many levels
Wikstrom’s Situational Action Theory
(SAT)
• Focuses on how characteristics of the person and environment
work together to impact crime
• Crimes are acts that violate moral rules embodied in the law
• Whether individuals engage in crime is influenced by their morality
• Morality influences action alternatives people perceive in particular
settings
• In most cases, people do not perceive crime as an option and conform
out of habit
• If crime is an option, people’s morality along with self control influence
their decision to commit crime
• Self control refers to the ability to act in accordance to one’s morality when
tempted or provoked
• Moral context refers to moral norms in a setting and the extent to
which the norms are enforced through informal and formal controls
Wikstrom’s Situational Action Theory
(SAT)
• Focuses on how characteristics of the person and
environment work together to impact crime
• Crime most likely when individuals with a propensity for crime
(morality favoring crime and low self-control) encounter
criminogenic settings
• Individual’s morality can influence likelihood of encountering
criminogenic settings
• SAT draws on differential association, social learning, self-
control, social control, and other theories
• Features of the larger social environment affect crime
through their impact on morality, self control, and settings
people encounter
Summary
• There are varied approaches to integrating theories
• Some describe the relationships among the various theories of
crime (Thornberry)
• Some identify a central causal variable (Tittle and Cullen)
• Some try to identify and describe the relationships between those
concrete or observable variables that cause crime (Agnew)
• Most integrated theories focus on micro-level offending
• Argue that a complete explanation of crime requires consideration
of both background factors and situational factors
• The causal factors are often reciprocally related, interact with one
another, and their impact changes over the life course