General Strain Theory Research Paper Example

This sample General Strain Theory Research Paper is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need help writing your assignment, please use our research paper writing service and buy a paper on any topic at affordable price. Also check our tips on how to write a research paper, see the lists of criminal justice research paper topics, and browse research paper examples.

General strain theory (GST) states that strains increase the likelihood of crime, particularly strains that are high in magnitude, are seen as unjust, are associated with low social control, and create some pressure or incentive for criminal coping. Examples include parental rejection, criminal victimization, a desperate need for money, and discrimination. These strains increase crime for several reasons; most notably, they lead to a range of negative emotions, which create pressure for corrective action. Crime is one possible response. Crime may be used to reduce or escape from strains (e.g., theft to obtain money, running away to escape abusive parents), seek revenge against the source of strain or related targets, or alleviate negative emotions (e.g., through illicit drug use). A range of factors, however, influence the response to strains. A criminal response is more likely when people lack the ability to cope in a legal manner, are disposed to crime, and the costs of crime are low and the benefits are high. This research paper describes the current status of GST, and is organized around a set of propositions dealing with (a) the nature of those strains conducive to crime; (b) the reasons why these strains increase crime; (c) the factors influencing or conditioning the effect of these strains on crime; and (d) efforts to apply GST to new areas, such as group differences in crime.

General Strain Theory: Key Propositions

General strain theory was first proposed in 1992 and has since inspired hundreds of research reports (see Agnew 1992, 2006; Agnew and Scheuerman 2011; Hoffmann 2010). This research has tested the theory, proposed revisions in it, and applied it to new areas. It is therefore important to describe the current state of GST. Further, it is an opportune time to do so, given that 2012 was the twentieth anniversary of the theory. This research paper draws on the research to present an updated version of GST, stated in the form of several core and secondary propositions. Each proposition is followed by a definition of key terms, the rationale for the proposition, summaries of the relevant research, and suggestions for further research. Given the large body of research on GST, it is only possible to cite previous reviews of GST and certain of the more recent research. And what follows is of course the author’s view of the current state of GST; others may argue for additional revisions in and extensions of the theory.

As the propositions below make clear, the basic form of GST remains intact. Certain strains increase the likelihood of crime, in part through their impact on negative emotions, with a range of factors influencing the likelihood of a criminal response. But the original statement of theory has been revised and extended in numerous ways. As noted below, the theory now better specifies the types of strain most likely to result in crime, more fully describes why these strains increase crime, and lists additional factors that may condition the effect of strains on crime. Also, the theory has been extended to explain group differences in crime, offending over the life course, and a broader range of crimes and deviant acts. At the same time, the theory is in need of further development in several areas. Most notably, the theory needs to better explain why some individuals are more likely than others to cope with strains in a criminal manner. Related to this, there should be an effort to better link GST to biological factors and larger social forces – both of which influence the exposure and reaction to strains. And efforts should be made to apply GST to the control of crime and the analysis of the criminal justice system.

The Nature Of Those Strains Conducive To Crime

Certain strains increase the likelihood of crime. Strains refer to events and conditions that are disliked by individuals (Agnew 1992, 2006). Strains are similar to “stressors,” but the term “strain” is used to emphasize the fact that GST is derived from prior strain theories in criminology and that it does not focus on all stressors, but rather on a subset of stressors conducive to crime. Strains may fall into one or more of three broad categories: (a) the inability to achieve valued goals (e.g., monetary, status goals), (b) the loss or threatened loss of valued stimuli (e.g., material possessions, the death of family members), and (c) the presentation or threatened presentation of negative stimuli (e.g., verbal and physical abuse). For example, an insult may involve the failure to achieve a valued goal (respect), the loss of valued stimuli (respectful treatment), and the presentation of a negative stimulus (the insult itself). The three categories of strain are presented not because they are necessarily distinct from one another, but rather to ensure that researchers consider a broad range of strains.

1a. Those strains most conducive to crime (a) are high in magnitude; (b) are seen as unjust; (c) are associated with low social control; and (d) create some pressure or incentive for criminal coping. These characteristics increase the likelihood that strains will impact those intervening mechanisms that lead to crime (see below). For example, strains that are high in magnitude and seen as unjust, such as an unprovoked physical attack, are more likely to make individuals angry than strains without these characteristics, such as an accidental bump. Agnew (2001, 2006) provides further information on these characteristics, including strategies for their measurement. Strains that are high in magnitude are high in degree (e.g., a large versus small financial loss), are frequent, recent, of long duration, and expected to continue into the future. Also, such strains are high in centrality; that is, they threaten the core goals, needs, values, activities, and/or identities of the individual. Strains that are seen as unjust typically involve the voluntary and intentional violation of a relevant justice norm or rule. Strains associated with low social control involve little direct control by others, weak attachment to conventional others, and/or little investment in conventional institutions. An example is parental rejection. Juveniles experiencing this strain are usually poorly supervised by and weakly bonded to their parents. Finally, strains that create some pressure or incentive for criminal coping are easily resolved through crime and/or involve exposure to others who encourage or model crime. For example, that strain involving a desperate need for money is readily resolved through crimes such as theft, drug selling, and prostitution. That strain involving the inability to achieve educational success, however, is not so easily resolved through crime. To give another example, strains involving criminal victimization expose individuals to others who model crime.

Several specific strains tend to possess the above characteristics, including parental rejection; erratic, excessive and/or harsh discipline; child abuse and neglect; negative secondary school experiences (e.g., low grades, poor relations with teachers); abusive peer relations; work in the secondary labor market (jobs with low pay, few benefits, poor working conditions); unemployment, especially when chronic and blamed on others; certain marital problems (frequent conflicts, verbal and physical abuse); the failure to achieve selected goals (thrills/ excitement, autonomy, masculine status, the desire for much money in a short period of time); criminal victimization; residence in economically deprived communities; homelessness; and discrimination based on race/ethnicity, gender, and religion. Research suggests that these strains increase the likelihood of crime, with some being among the most important causes of crime (see Agnew 2006; Agnew and Scheuerman 2011; Baron 2009).

Researchers, however, need to devote more attention to certain of these strains, such as discrimination (e.g., Eitle 2002; Simons et al. 2003). Also, researchers should explicitly measure characteristics such as the magnitude and perceived injustice of strains, determining if variation in them affects crime (see Agnew 2006; Rebellon et al. 2009). Unfortunately, the research on GST sometimes employs measures of strain that are rather general; so it is not clear whether the strains examined possess the above characteristics. For example, researchers often measure the experience of strains by employing checklists that ask such things as whether a family member has died. But when explaining crime, it makes a great deal of difference whether the death involved a great-grandmother who died of natural causes (moderate magnitude, little injustice) or a brother who was shot by rival gang members (high magnitude, high injustice). Related to this, there is a need for qualitative research on the nature of and response to strains; such research will allow for the detailed measurement of the nature of strains and perhaps suggest other characteristics that should be considered when explaining crime.

1b. Strains may be objective or subjective in nature, with subjective strains having a greater effect on crime. Objective strains refer to events and conditions disliked by most people in a given group. Subjective strains refer to events and conditions disliked by the people experiencing them (Agnew 2006). Research indicates that individuals often differ a good deal in their subjective evaluation of a given objective strain, such as divorce. Some individuals view their divorce as the worst thing that ever happened to them, while others view it as a cause for celebration. Subjective strains should have a greater impact on crime since they are more likely to trigger negative emotional reactions and other of the intervening processes conducive to crime (see below). At the same time, objective strains may increase crime even when not subjectively disliked, since these strains may still have criminogenic effects (e.g., they may lower social and self-control). Most studies employ objective measures of strain, focusing on events and conditions assumed to be disliked by most people. The few studies that have examined both objective and subjective strains have produced mixed results; only some find that subjective strains have a stronger effect on crime (e.g., Froggio and Agnew 2007). More research is needed in this area, including research that measures the subjective interpretation of strains in more detail. For example, are strains perceived to be high in magnitude and are they blamed on others (a key component of perceived injustice). Baron (2008) provides an excellent illustration of the potential value of such research, finding that the manner in which unemployment is interpreted has a major impact on whether it affects crime.

1c. Strains may be experienced, vicarious, and anticipated, with experienced strains having a greater effect on crime. GST focuses on the individual’s personal experiences with strains, but certain vicarious and anticipated strains may affect crime (Agnew 2006; Baron 2009). Vicarious strains refer to the individual’s awareness of strains experienced by others. Such strains are more likely to affect crime if they involve close others, such as family and friends; the individual feels some responsibility for the welfare of these others; the strains have the characteristics listed in 1a; and the strains signal a threat to the individual. An example involves the shooting death of a fellow gang member by those in a rival gang. Anticipated strains refer to the individual’s expectation that current strains will continue into the future or that new strains will be experienced. Anticipated strains are more likely to result in crime when individuals believe that they have a high probability of occurring in the near future and they have the characteristics listed in 1a. Experienced strains should be more likely to affect crime than vicarious and anticipated strains, since they pose a more direct and immediate problem for individuals. At the same time, research on criminal victimization indicates that the victimization of close others and the anticipated victimization of oneself may increase crime (Agnew 2002; Baron 2009). Research on other types of vicarious and anticipated strain is needed (e.g., financial hardship experienced by close others, the anticipation of financial difficulties by corporate executives).

1d. Strains are more likely to affect crime when they are clustered together in time. The temporal clustering of strains is more likely to result in the criminogenic effects described below, such as the taxing of legal coping resources (see Agnew 2006). And certain research suggests that crime is more likely when several strains are experienced at the same time (Slocum et al. 2005). This clustering effect implies an interaction: The effect of a given strain on crime will be stronger when other strains are present. It is often difficult, however, to examine the many interactions between multiple strains. But researchers can examine both the separate and the cumulative effects of strains, with the cumulative effect being measured in terms of the number of criminogenic strains experienced at the same time or close together in time. Crime should become more likely as this number increases. More research is needed in this area, however. Among other things, the nature of this cumulative effect needs to be better specified. For example, it may be the case that the cumulative strain measure has a nonlinear effect on crime, such that further increases in the number of strains beyond a certain threshold point have little effect on crime.

Why The Above Strains Increase Crime (Intervening Processes)

The strains listed above increase the likelihood of crime for several reasons; most notably, they lead to negative emotional states, which create pressure for corrective action – with crime being one possible response. Recall that strains refer to disliked events and conditions, with the most criminogenic strains being high in magnitude and perceived as unjust. Not surprisingly, these strains lead to negative emotions such as anger, frustration, and/or depression. These emotions create pressure for corrective action: Individuals feel bad and want to do something about it. Crime is one response. Research suggests that state anger partly explains the effect of strains on crime, especially violence. And research has begun to focus on the mediating role played by other emotions, such as depression (Agnew 2006; Agnew and Scheuerman 2011). It is beginning to appear that some types of strain may be more conducive to certain negative emotions than others, and that some negative emotions may be more conducive to certain crimes than others. For example, anger may be more conducive to externalizing behaviors such as aggression, while depression may be more conducive to internalizing behaviors such as drug use. More research is needed in this area. Research is also needed on the reasons why negative emotions increase crime; for example, anger may increase aggression because it energizes individuals for action, creates a desire for revenge, reduces concern for the consequences of one’s behavior, and/or limits the ability to engage in many legal coping behaviors – such as negotiation (Agnew 2006).

2a. Strains reduce the ability to legally cope, making crime seem like a rational option. A large financial loss or chronic unemployment, for example, may exhaust one’s financial resources, leaving few legal options for obtaining money. Consequently, crime may appear to be the most effective way to respond to strain. As such, strains may sometimes lead to crime in the absence of negative emotions (see Hoffmann 2010).

2b. Strains may also increase crime because they foster traits conducive to crime, particularly negative emotionality/trait anger and low constraint/low self-control. This is especially true of chronic strains (Agnew 2006; Colvin 2000). Chronic strains tax legal coping resources, such that individuals are more easily upset when they experience new strains (a key characteristic of trait anger and negative emotionality). Also, certain strains – such as harsh and erratic discipline – may foster low constrain or low self-control. Individuals must be taught to exercise self-restraint, and this occurs when they are consistently sanctioned for misbehavior in a reasonable manner. There is limited support for these arguments, with several studies finding that strains reduce self-control and, especially, increase trait anger/negative emotionality (Agnew 2006; Colvin 2000). Further, these traits partly mediate the effect of strains on crime. More research is needed here, however, particularly longitudinal research.

2c. Strains may increase crime because they reduce social control. Strains frequently involve negative and unjust treatment by others, including parents, spouses, teachers, employers, and those in the criminal justice system. Such strains may reduce attachment to these others, as well as commitment to school, work, and the criminal justice system. Individuals experiencing negative treatment may also limit their contact with these others: in some cases, running away from parents, dropping out of school, divorcing spouses, and quitting jobs. This reduces direct control, since these others are less able to monitor and sanction criminal behavior. Further, these effects may weaken beliefs condemning crime, since ties to those others who teach conventional beliefs are undermined. Beyond that, certain strains – such as chronic unemployment and homelessness – overlap with low social control. Researchers usually do not examine the effect of strains on social control, but several studies – some of which are longitudinal – have found that strains reduce the major types of control (Agnew 2006).

2d. Strains may increase crime because they foster the social learning of crime. Strains may increase the likelihood of association with criminal peers, a point emphasized by classic strain theorists (see Agnew 2006). Strains increase association with criminal peers by weakening social control, which frees individuals to associate with criminal peers, and by increasing the appeal of criminal groups. In particular, criminal groups are often seen as a solution to the strains one is experiencing. For example, criminal groups often provide status, protection from others, and opportunities to make money. In additions, strains foster beliefs conducive to crime. Individuals being treated in a negative and unjust manner by others are more likely to develop justifications and excuses for crime (e.g., peer abuse justifies violence, chronic unemployment excuses theft). Several studies provide support for these arguments (e.g., Agnew 2006).

2e. Strains may have both contemporaneous and lagged effects on intervening variables and crime. The experience of particular strains most often has a contemporaneous effect on intervening variables and crime. For example, imagine that a parent ridicules a child. This ridicule likely has a fairly immediate effect on the child’s anger and attachment to the parent, and may lead to delinquent acts in the near term – such as striking the parent or running away from home. But with time, the child’s anger and dislike of the parent fades, along with the likelihood of delinquency. In certain cases, however, strains may have lagged as well as contemporaneous effects on delinquency. This is the case with strains that are very high in magnitude, such as sexual abuse, and with chronic or persistent strains. Such strains may lead to negative emotional traits, to long-term reductions in the ability to legally cope, to long-term reductions in social control, and to long-term associations with criminal others and beliefs favorable to crime. For example, parents who regularly discipline their children in a harsh manner may lead the children to develop the trait of negative emotionality, may permanently reduce levels of parental attachment, and may foster the belief that violence is an appropriate response to certain problems. As a result, this chronic strain is likely to have both a contemporaneous and lagged effect on delinquency. When longitudinal data are available, researchers should attempt to estimate the contemporaneous effects of strains on crime and, where appropriate, the lagged effects as well.

Factors That Influence The Effect Of Strains On Crime (Conditioning Variables)

There are numerous ways to cope with strains, with a range of factors influencing the likelihood of criminal coping. Criminal coping is more likely among those who (a) have poor conventional coping skills and resources (e.g., poor problem-solving and social skills, low self-efficacy, limited financial resources), (b) have criminal skills and resources (e.g., criminal self-efficacy), (c) have low levels of conventional social support, (d) are low in social control, (e) associate with other criminals, (f) hold beliefs favorable to crime, (g) have traits conducive to crime (e.g., negative emotionality, low constraint), and (h) are more often exposed to situations where the costs of crime are low and the benefits high (Agnew 2006). Researchers have added to the list of conditioning variables since GST was introduced in 1992, pointing to the importance of environmental variables such as religious involvement and traits such as low self-control (Agnew 2006; Jang and Johnson 2005). The research on conditioning effects, however, has produced mixed results – and this constitutes perhaps the greatest puzzle regarding GST. Agnew (2006) lists several possible reasons for these mixed results, including methodological problems that make it difficult to detect conditioning effects in survey research, problems in the measurement of certain conditioning variables, and the fact that researchers usually consider the conditioning variables in isolation from one another. Criminal coping should be most likely among those who possess all or most of the factors conducive to such coping, an argument that has received some support (Mazerolle and Maahs 2000).

Research is needed to better investigate these possibilities (see Agnew 2006). Also, researchers should attempt to better draw on the biopsychological research, which suggests that there are substantial differences between individuals in their sensitivity and reaction to stressors. Biological markers for these differences have been identified, and researchers should examine whether they condition the effect of strains on crime (Moffitt et al. 2011). Further, researchers should draw on the coping literature, which describes a range of strategies that individuals employ to cope with stressors (Agnew 2006). Some strategies appear to be more effective than others, although the effectiveness of particular strategies may vary by the type of stress. For example, religious involvement may be an effective way to cope with the death of a family member, but not with peer abuse. Researches should determine if certain strategies are more often linked to crime and, if so, they should examine the factors affecting the use of these strategies. Related to this, researchers should also examine whether past experiences with strains reduce the effect of current strains on crime, particularly in cases where the past strains were successfully resolved. Past experiences with strains may improve one’s coping skills and increase one’s tolerance of current strains.

Extending General Strain Theory

GST can help explain group differences in crime, including socio-demographic, community, and societal differences. Certain groups have higher crime rates than others because they are (a) more exposed to the criminogenic strains described above; (b) more likely to react to these strains with negative emotions; and/or (c) more likely to cope with these strains and negative emotions through crime, because they differ in their standing on one or more of the conditioning factors listed above. GST has been used to explain gender, race/ethnic, age, social class, community, and societal differences in crime (e.g., Agnew 2006; Bao and Haas 2009; Brezina et al. 2001; De Coster and Zito 2010; Froggio and Agnew 2007; Jang and Lyons 2006; Kaufman et al. 2008; Perez et al. 2008; Simons et al. 2003; Warner and Fowler 2003). Research suggests that GST applies to a range of groups and that it often helps explain group differences in offending. However, it is somewhat difficult to generalize from these studies. They frequently examine different strains, emotions, and conditioning variables; employ different measures; and examine different types of samples. So at present, there is still some uncertainty about how groups differ in the extent and nature of the strains they experience, as well as in their reaction to these strains. More research is needed here. Related to this, criminologists should attempt to link GST with macro-level theories – which can shed light on why and how groups differ in strains and the reaction to them. GST is a social-psychological theory, but it is compatible with a range of macro-level theories, including most critical theories, feminist theories, and Institutional Anomie Theory (see Agnew 2006). Such theories discuss group differences in the experience of certain strains (e.g., types of gender oppression) and often provide some insight into group differences in the reaction to strain (e.g., gender differences in values and levels of control).
GST can help explain patterns of offending over the life course, including “adolescencelimited” and “life-course-persistent” offending (see Agnew 2006; Slocum 2010). Offending increases during adolescence because the social environment and biology of adolescents are such that they experience more criminogenic strains and associated negative emotions, and are more likely to cope with these strains/emotions through crime. Some individuals offend at high rates over much of their lives because (a) they possess relatively stable traits that increase their exposure to criminogenic strains and their likelihood of criminal coping; (b) they are part of the urban underclass, which increases their exposure to criminogenic strains and their likelihood of criminal coping, with an amplifying loop being set into motion – their criminal and other negative responses to strains increase the likelihood of further strains; and/or (c) they experience “stress proliferation,” wherein the experience of certain strains leads to further strains (e.g., chronic unemployment leads to family conflict). Several studies have found that the level of strain over time is associated with the level of crime, and recent research has begun to test the explanations for the patterns of offending just described (e.g., Agnew 2006; Eitle 2010; Slocum 2010).
GST can help explain situational variations in crime, with such variations partly due to situational variations in strain – particularly provocations. Most crime research focuses on the factors that create a general predisposition for crime, but even highly predisposed individuals only engage in crime in certain situations. The routine activities perspective has dominated the explanation of situational variations in crime, arguing that crime is most likely in situations where motivated offenders encounter attractive targets in the absence of capable guardians. But qualitative data suggest that crime is also likely in situations where individuals encounter much strain; most notably, violent crime often results when individuals are provoked by others, with such provocations usually involving verbal and physical abuse. And property crime appears more likely in situations where individuals have a desperate need for money (Agnew 2006; Hoffmann 2010). More research is needed here, particularly survey research that builds on the qualitative studies (see Slocum et al. 2005).
GST can explain a range of crimes and deviant acts beyond street crimes, although the theory should be customized to maximize explanatory power. GST has been applied to the explanation of white-collar and corporate crime, terrorism, states crimes such as genocide, self-harming behaviors such as suicide attempts and eating disorders, cyber-bullying, police deviance, and other criminal/deviant acts (e.g., Agnew et al. 2009; Agnew 2010a; Hay et al. 2010; MaierKatkin et al. 2009; Piquero et al. 2010). It is often the case that “customized” versions of GST are developed for each type of crime and deviance, with each version pointing to those strains and conditioning variables that are especially relevant. For example, the strains that prompt corporate crime or terrorism differ somewhat from those that prompt street crimes, although many strains are relevant across a range of crimes.
GST can guide efforts to control crime, with such efforts reducing the exposure to criminogenic strains and the likelihood of criminal coping. A variety of approaches may be employed here, including (a) reducing those strains conducive to crime (e.g., reducing child abuse, raising the minimum wage); (b) altering strains to make them less conducive to crime (increasing the perceived justice of criminal sanctions through the restorative justice approach); (c) removing people from criminogenic strains (e.g., from abusive homes or schools); (d) equipping people with the traits and skills to avoid criminogenic strains (e.g., teaching people to behave in a less provocative manner); (e) altering the perceptions or goals of people to reduce subjective strain (e.g., reducing the emphasis on consumerism); (f) improving coping skills and resources (e.g., teaching problem-solving skills); (g) increasing social support (e.g., mentoring programs); and (h) reducing the disposition for criminal coping (e.g., altering beliefs conducive to crime). There have not yet been any attempts to use GST to reduce crime, although GST is compatible with a range of successful crime control programs (see Agnew 2006, 2010b).

GST can also be used to shed light on the nature and operation of the criminal justice system. In particular, strains may influence the focus of the criminal justice system (e.g., high levels of strain in the general population, such as unemployment, may contribute to more punitive criminal justice policies). Related to this, strains may influence public attitudes toward criminal justice (e.g., individuals experiencing certain strains may place more emphasis on punitive approaches). Strains may also influence the attitudes, behavior, and effectiveness of law enforcement, court, and corrections workers (e.g., strains may contribute to police deviance and turnover among prison staff). And strains may influence the attitudes and behavior of those processed by the criminal justice system (e.g., prison strains may affect inmate behavior and recidivism). A few recent studies have applied GST to the analysis of the criminal justice system (e.g., Blevins et al. 2010), and hopefully more work will be done in this area.

Conclusion

General strain theory has much support and has established itself as one of the leading theories of crime. In particular, there is much evidence that the strains identified by the theory impact crime and that they do so partly through negative emotions. GST is also increasingly being applied to new issues, such as the explanation of group differences in crime and offending over the life course. At the same time, certain parts of the research on GST have produced mixed results, particularly research on those factors said to condition the effect of strains on crime; several areas of the theory are in need of further exploration; and numerous opportunities for applying the theory to new areas remain.

Bibliography:

Agnew R (1992) Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology 30:47–87
Agnew R (2001) Building on the foundation of general strain theory: specifying the types of strain most likely to lead to crime and delinquency. J Res Crime Delinq 38:319–361
Agnew R (2006) Pressured into crime: an overview of general strain theory. Oxford University Press, New York
Agnew R (2010a) A general strain theory of terrorism. Theor Criminol 14:131–154
Agnew R (2010b) Controlling crime: recommendations from general strain theory. In: Barlow HD, Decker SH (eds) Criminology and public policy: putting theory to work. Temple University Press, Philadelphia
Agnew R, Scheuerman H (2011) Straintheories. Oxford bibliographies online at http://oxfordbibliographiesonline.com/
Agnew R, Piquero NL, Cullen FT (2009) General strain theory and white-collar crime. In: Simpson SS, Weisburd D (eds) The criminology of white-collar crime. Springer, New York
Bao W, Haas A (2009) Social change, life strain, and delinquency among Chinese urban adolescents. Sociol Focus 42:285–305
Baron SW (2008) Street youth, unemployment, and crime: is it that simple? Using general strain theory to untangle the relationship. Can J Criminol Crim Justice 50:399–434
Baron SW (2009) Street youths’ violent responses to violent personal, vicarious, and anticipated strain. J Crim Justice 37:442–451
Blevins KR, Listwan S, Cullen FT, Johnson CL (2010) A general strain theory of prison violence and misconduct: an integrated model of inmate behavior. J Contemp Crim Justice 26:148–166
Brezina T, Piquero AR, Mazerolle P (2001) Student anger and aggressive behavior in school: an initial test of Agnew’s macro-level strain theory. J Res Crime Delinq 38:362–386
Colvin M (2000) Crime and coercion. St. Martin’s Press, New York
De Coster S, Zito RC (2010) Gender and general strain theory: the gendering of emotional experiences and expressions. J Contemp Crim Justice 26:224–245
Slocum LA, Simpson SS, Smith DA (2005) Strained lives and crime: examining intra-individual variation in strain and offending in a sample of incarcerated women. Criminology 43:827–854
Warner BD, Fowler SK (2003) Strain and violence: testing a general strain theory model of community violence. J Crim Justice 31:511–521
Eitle DJ (2002) Exploring a source of deviance-producing strain for females: perceived discrimination and general strain theory. J Crim Justice 30:429–442
Eitle D (2010) General strain theory, persistence, and desistence among young adult males. J Crim Justice 38:1113–1121
Froggio G, Agnew R (2007) The relationship between crime and ‘objective’ versus ‘subjective’ strains. J Crim Justice 35:81–87
Hay C, Meldrum R, Mann K (2010) Traditional bullying, cyber bullying, and deviance: a general strain theory approach. J Contemp Crim Justice 26:13–147
Hoffmann JP (2010) Contemporary retrospective on general strain theory. In: Copes H, Topalli V (eds) Criminological theory: readings and retrospectives. McGraw Hill, New York
Jang SJ, Johnson BR (2005) Gender, religiosity, and reactions to strain among African Americans. Sociol Q 46:323–357
Kaufman JM, Rebellon CJ, Thaxton S, Agnew R (2008) A general strain theory of racial differences in criminal offending. Aust N Z J Criminol 41:421–437
Maier-Katkin D, Mears DP, Bernard TJ (2009) Toward a criminology of crimes against humanity. Theor Criminol 13:227–255
Mazerolle P, Maahs J (2000) General strain theory and delinquency: an alternative examination of conditioning influences. Justice Q 17:753–778
Moffitt TE, Ross S, Raine A (2011) Crime and biology. In: Wilson JQ, Petersilia J (eds) Crime and public policy. Oxford University Press, New York
Perez DM, Jennings WG, Gover AR (2008) Specifying general strain theory: an ethnically relevant approach. Deviant Behav 29:544–578
Piquero NL, Fox K, Piquero AR, Capowich G, Mazerolle P (2010) Gender, general strain theory, negative emotions, and disordered eating. J Youth Adolesc 39:380–392
Rebellon CJ, Piquero NL, Piquero AR, Thaxton S (2009) Do frustrated economic expectations and objective economic inequity promote crime. Eur J Criminol 6:47–71
Simons RL, Chen Y, Stewart EA, Brody GH (2003) Incidents of discrimination and risk for delinquency: a longitudinal test of strain theory with an African American sample. Justice Q 20:827–854
Slocum LA (2010) General strain theory and the development of stressors and substance use over time: an empirical examination. J Crim Justice 38:1100–1112