Deviance and Strain Theory in SociologyBy Charlotte Nickerson, published Oct 01, 2021 Show
Summary
Overview of Robert Merton's Theory of DevianceBuilding off of Durkheim’s work on anomie, Merton (1957), was the first person to write about what sociologists call strain theory. To Merton, anomie was a condition that existed in the discrepancy between societal goals and the means that individuals have in achieving them.
Holding this cultural value in high regard, they turn to illegitimate means of obtaining wealth, becoming criminals in the process. The discrepancy or strain between the aspirations and the means of achieving them became known as “strain theory.” Implicit in Merton’s approach is that the factors that lead to order and disorder in a society (such as crime versus the order of social norms) are not mutually exclusive, and that cultural values that have desirable functions often contain or produce undesirable consequences (Hagen & Daigle, 2018). Five Responses to Strain“The extreme emphasis on the accumulation of wealth as a symbol of success in our own society militates against the completely effective control of institutionally regulated modes of acquiring a fortune. Fraud, corruption, vice, crime, in short the entire catalogue of proscribed behavior becomes increasingly common…” (Merton, 1938, p.59). Society’s emphasis on financial success and materialism through the mythology of the “American Dream” can be stressful for those whose chances of realizing that dream are limited (Messner & Rosenfeld, 2012). The rewards of conformity are available only to those who can pursue approved goals through approved means. Any other combination of means and goals is deviant in one way or another. Merton argued that individuals at the bottom of society could respond to this strain in a number of ways. Different orientations toward society’s goals and differential access to the means to achieve those goals combine to create different categories of deviance. Conformity: individuals are following a societal goal through legitimate means. Although a conformist may not necessarily achieve the societal goal, he has enough faith in society to follow legitimate means. For example, a student who is going to school in order to advance a professional career is conforming, as he is following the American cultural value of success through an approved means (Inderbitzen, Bates, & Gainey 2016). Innovation: the individual shares the cultural goal of the society but reaches this goal through illegitimate means. Thieves - who share the cultural goal of wealth obtainment, but do so through breaking the law (such as drug dealing or embezzlement), are innovators. Ritualists: individuals who have given up hope of achieving society’s approved goals but still operate according to society’s approved means. A member of middle management, for example, who accepts that they will never progress but nonetheless stays in their position is a ritualist. Retreatists (like dropouts or hermits): individuals who have rejected both a society’s goals and the legitimate means of obtaining them, and live outside conventional norms altogether. Drug addicts and figures such as Chris McCandleless — an Emory University graduate found dead in Alaska after attempting to reject capitalism, hitchhike north, and live off the land — retreat from both societal rule and societally-approved means (Krakauer 2018). Rebellion exists outside of Merton’s system altogether. Rebels aim to replace societal goals with those of their own and devise their own means of achieving them. The most obvious examples of rebellion are terrorist organizations, which attempt to advance a goal, typically political, through means such as violence (Inderbitzen, Bates, & Gainey 2016) Criticism of Merton's Strain TheoryMerton’s strain theory became the basis of much of criminal sociology in the 1950s and 1960s, but received substantial and damaging criticism. Writers such as Hirschi (1969), Johnson (1979), and Kornhauser (1978) have argued that Merton’s theory is not supported empirically; however, others (such as Farnworth and Lieber, 1989) argue that it does.
Agnew’s General Strain TheoryGeneral Strain Theory’s core is that individuals who experience stress or stressors often become upset and sometimes cope with crime (Agnew & Brezina, 2019). According to General Strain Theory, strain increases crime because it leads to negative emotions such as anger, frustration, depression, and fear. Individuals want to do something to correct these emotions, and their circumstances may make it so that committing a crime is an individual’s most accessible option for coping (Agnew & Brezina, 2019). These negative emotions may also lower the barriers to crime. For example, angry people often have a strong desire for revenge (Agnew 2006). Agnew (1985) argues that delinquency is most common among those experiencing negative life events, such as divorce or financial problems (Hagen & Daigle, 2018). He also argues that delinquency comes from an inability to avoid painful environments – such as a school environment where there are interaction problems with teachers. This creates negative affect and delinquency becomes a means of obtaining what one has been prevented from obtaining (instrumental), retaliation, or escapism (Hagen & Daigle 2018). Consequently, there are three types of strain, according to Agnew (Agnew & Brezina, 2019):
General Strain Theory differentiates between strain on two different axes: objective vs. subjective strain and experienced, vicarious, and anticipated strains. Objective strain happens because of events and conditions that most people in a given group dislike, while subjective strain results from events and conditions disliked by one particular person or the particular persons being studied. This is an important distinction because the negativity of an experience can differ radically between individuals. For example, one person may call divorce the worst experience of their life while another may consider it a cause for celebration (Agnew & Brezina, 2019; Agnew, 2006). Most researchers ask about objective levels of strain — whether or not individuals have experienced events that researchers assume are negative — however, it is important to consider that some so-called negative events can be positive to certain individuals and vice-versa (Agnew &</p><p>Agnew (2002) also differentiates between experienced, vicarious, and anticipated strain. Experienced strains are strains directly experienced by someone, vicarious strains are strains experienced by others, often those that the individual feels protective toward.</p><p>And finally, anticipated strains are strains that individuals expect to experience, especially in the near future.</p><p></p><div class="panel panel-default"><div class="panel-body"><p></p><h2>Examples of Strain</h2><p></p><p>However, General Strain Theory does not consider negative emotions to be the only factor that increases crime in trained individuals. Strain can reduce levels of social control, such as how much someone values conformity and the belief that crime is wrong.</p><span class="ezoic-autoinsert-ad ezoic-incontent_5"></span><span style="clear:both;display:block" id="ez-clearholder-large-mobile-banner-1"></span><span class="ezoic-ad ezoic-at-0 large-mobile-banner-1 large-mobile-banner-1700 adtester-container adtester-container-700" data-ez-name="simplypsychology_org-large-mobile-banner-1"><span id="div-gpt-ad-simplypsychology_org-large-mobile-banner-1-0" ezaw="300" ezah="250" style="position:relative;z-index:0;display:inline-block;padding:0;min-height:250px;min-width:300px" class="ezoic-ad"><script data-ezscrex="false" data-cfasync="false" style="display:none">if(typeof ez_ad_units!='undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[300,250],'simplypsychology_org-large-mobile-banner-1','ezslot_20',700,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-simplypsychology_org-large-mobile-banner-1-0');</p><blockquote><p>When strain comes from negative treatment from those in authority — such as parents, teachers, employers, and the police — this can decrease the individual’s stake in conformity and conventional society.</p></blockquote><p>Rather than conforming to traditional ideas of social controls, strained individuals tend to adopt a values system that minimizes concern for others and prioritizes self-interest (Agnew & Brezina 2019; Brezina & Agnew 2017; Konty, 2005).</p><p>Strain can also encourage the social learning of crime. A student who is bullied can be regularly exposed to models of aggression, and chronically employed individuals living in communities where there is little room for economic opportunity may belong to groups that believe theft and drug dealing are acceptable.</p><p>The strains most likely to result in crime are those that are high in magnitude, that are seen as unjust, strains associated with low social control — such as parental rejection — and strains that create a pressure or incentive to cope criminally — such as a desperate need for money (Agnew & Brezina, 2019).</p><span class="ezoic-autoinsert-ad ezoic-incontent_6"></span><span style="clear:both;display:block" id="ez-clearholder-large-mobile-banner-2"></span><span class="ezoic-ad ezoic-at-0 large-mobile-banner-2 large-mobile-banner-2701 adtester-container adtester-container-701" data-ez-name="simplypsychology_org-large-mobile-banner-2"><span id="div-gpt-ad-simplypsychology_org-large-mobile-banner-2-0" ezaw="300" ezah="250" style="position:relative;z-index:0;display:inline-block;padding:0;min-height:280px;min-width:336px" class="ezoic-ad"><script data-ezscrex="false" data-cfasync="false" style="display:none">if(typeof ez_ad_units!='undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[300,250],'simplypsychology_org-large-mobile-banner-2','ezslot_21',701,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-simplypsychology_org-large-mobile-banner-2-0'); Many sociologists have researched which strains are the most likely to cause crime (such as Arter, 2008, Baron & Hartnagel, 1997, and Ellwanger, 2007), and Agnew (2002) compiles a list of these strains. They are:
Some sociologists, such as De Coster and Kort Butler (2006) have found that strains in certain life domains — such as family, school, and peer groups — are especially related to delinquency in that domain (Agnew & Brezina, 2019). Langton (2007) found that general strain theory is able to explain certain types of upper class “white-collar crimes” (such as tax fraud), but that Agnew’s theory cannot generalize to all corporate crimes. Indeed, Langton suggests, the types of strain and negative emotions experienced by white collar workers may differ from that of other populations. Not all individuals respond to stress with crimes. For example, someone can cope with living in a poor urban area by moving away, a lack of financial resources by borrowing money, or low grades by studying more effectively. Nonetheless, General Strain Theory outlines a few factors that make criminal coping more likely (Agnew & Brezina 2019):
Institutional Anomie TheorySteven Messner and Richard Rosenfeld, in their book Crime and the American Dream (2012), extend Agnew’s General Strain Theory into “institutional anomie theory.” In this view, society is made up of social institutions (such as family, religion, and economic structure), and greater rates of crime result when one institution — the institution of economic structure — trumps all others. People in this society begin to try to accumulate material wealth at the cost of all else, and a lack of control and authority by noneconomic institutions institutionalized anomie. ExamplesBullying and Self-Harm in AdolescentsHay & Meldrum (2010) examined self-harm in 426 adolescents in the rural United States from the perspective of Agnew’s General Strain Theory. They emphasized two seldom spoken about areas of strain and deviance: self-harm as deviance and bullying as strain. Self-harm, according to Hay & Meldrum, is an internalized deviant act (as it usually only affects oneself) and can result from strainful relationships with peers (such as bullying). Hay & Meldrum hypothesized three things. Firstly, bullying is significantly and positively associated with self-harm. Secondly, this self-harm is mediated by the negative emotional experiences of those who are bullied — such as anxiety, depression, and low self-worth. And, thirdly, that prosocial, authoritative parenting and high levels of self-control would be associated with lower levels of self-harm. Hay & Meldrum considered authoritative parenting to be a “moderating variable” because it indicates high access to family support. Ultimately, the researchers found that General Strain Theory did align with the behavior they observed. Adolescents who experienced bullying, in-person or over the internet, had more negative emotions. These negative emotions were especially high among females, people of color, those living in immigrant or non intact households, and those low in self-control. And those who had more negative emotions but few avenues to “mediate them” (such as through strong, prosocial family support) had higher levels of self-harm (Hay & Meldrum, 2010). TerrorismMany researchers have attempted to create theories of terrorism by accounting for particular types of strain — such as poverty — but they consider all of the factors that could lead to terrorism (Inderbitzen, Bates, & Gainey, 2016). Terrrorism is likely to result from a group or collective experiencing “collective strains'' (Inderbitzen, Bates, & Gainey 2016). These strains can be because of several factors, such as race and ethnicity, religion, class, politics, or territorial groups. However, the strains mostly resulting in terrorism are high in magnitude with civilian victims, unjust, or caused by more powerful others (Agnew 1992). For example, case studies of terrorist organizations such as the Tamil Tigers, Basque Homeland and Liberty, Kurdistan Workers Party, and the Irish Republican Army reveal that the strains faced by these groups involved serious violence — such as death and rape — threats to livelihood, large scale imprisonment and detention, and attempts to eradicate ethnic identity (Inderbitzen, Bates, & Gainey, 2016). These strains happened over long periods and affected many people, largely civilians (Callaway and Harrelson-Stephens 2006, Inderbitzen, Bates, & Gainey 2016). Members of terrorist groups that do not seem to have experienced high magnitude strains still report experiencing high magnitude strains (Hoffman 2006). For example, some right-wing terrorists in the United States believe in a “Zionist Occupation Government” which threatens their values (Blazak 2001, Inderbitzen, Bates, & Gainey, 2016). These strains must be seen as unjust — for example, if it violates strongly held social norms or values or if it differs substantially from how members of the collective have been treated in the past. These strains lead to strong negative emotions — such as anger, humiliation and hopelessness, and make it difficult to cope legally and militarily, leaving terrorism as one of few viable coping options (Inderbitzen, Bates, & Gainey 2016). They also reduce social control and provide models for and foster beliefs favorable to terrorism (Inderbitzen, Bates, & Gainey 2016). As a result, following General Strain Theory, terrorist groups resort to deviance in the form of collective violence. About the AuthorCharlotte Nickerson is a member of the Class of 2024 at Harvard University. Coming from a research background in biology and archeology, Charlotte currently studies how digital and physical space shapes human beliefs, norms, and behaviors and how this can be used to create businesses with greater social impact. How to reference this article:How to reference this article:Nickerson, C. (2021, Oct 01). Merton’s strain theory of deviance. Simply Psychology. www.simplypsychology.org/mertons-strain-theory-deviance.html ReferencesAgnew, R. (1985). A revised strain theory of delinquency. Social forces, 64(1), 151-167. Agnew, R. (2002). Experienced, vicarious, and anticipated strain: An exploratory study on physical victimization and delinquency. Justice quarterly, 19(4), 603-632. Agnew, R., & Brezina, T. (2019). General Strain Theory. In M. D. Krohn, N. Hendrix, G. Penly Hall, & A. J. Lizotte (Eds.), Handbook on Crime and Deviance (pp. 145-160). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Agnew, R., & Brezina, T. (2019). General strain theory. In Handbook on crime and deviance (pp. 145-160): Springer. Agnew, R., Cullen, F. T., Burton Jr, V. S., Evans, T. D., & Dunaway, R. G. (1996). A new test of classic strain theory. Justice quarterly, 13(4), 681-704. Baron, S. W., & Hartnagel, T. F. (1997). ATTRIBUTIONS, AFFECT, AND CRIME: STREET YOUTHS'REACTIONS TO UNEMPLOYMENT. Criminology, 35(3), 409-434. Blazak, R. (2001). White boys to terrorist men: Target recruitment of Nazi skinheads. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(6), 982-1000. Brezina, T., & Agnew, R. (2017). Juvenile delinquency and subterranean values revisited. Delinquency and Drift Revisited, 73-97. Callaway, R. L., & Harrelson-Stephens, J. (2006). Toward a theory of terrorism: Human security as a determinant of terrorism. Studies in conflict & terrorism, 29(8), 773-796. Cullen, F. T., & Agnew, R. (2003). Criminological theory. Past to present. De Coster, S., & Kort-Butler, L. (2006). How general is general strain theory? Assessing determinacy and indeterminacy across life domains. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43(4), 297-325. Durkheim, E. (2000). The division of labor in society (1893): Blackwell. Durkheim, E. (2005). Suicide: A study in sociology: Routledge. Ellwanger, S. J. (2007). Strain, attribution, and traffic delinquency among young drivers: Measuring and testing general strain theory in the context of driving. Crime & Delinquency, 53(4), 523-551. Farnworth, M., & Leiber, M. J. (1989). Strain theory revisited: Economic goals, educational means, and delinquency. American Sociological Review, 263-274. Hagan, F. E., & Daigle, L. E. (2018). Introduction to criminology: Theories, methods, and criminal behavior: Sage Publications. Hay, C., & Meldrum, R. (2010). Bullying Victimization and Adolescent Self-Harm: Testing Hypotheses from General Strain Theory. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(5), 446-459. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9502-0 Hirschi, T., & Stark, R. (1969). Hellfire and delinquency. Social Problems, 17(2), 202-213. Hoffman, B. (2006). Insurgency and counterinsurgency in Iraq. Studies in conflict & terrorism, 29(2), 103-121. Inderbitzin, M., Bates, K. A., & Gainey, R. R. (2018). Perspectives on deviance and social control: Sage Publications. Johnson, R. E., & Johnson, E. E. (1979). Juvenile delinquency and its origins: An integrated theoretical approach: CUP Archive. Konty, M. (2005). Microanomie: The cognitive foundations of the relationship between anomie and deviance. Criminology, 43(1), 107-132. Kornhauser, R. R. (1978). Social sources of delinquency: An appraisal of analytic models. Krakauer, J. (2018). Into the wild (Vol. 78): Pan Macmillan. Langton, L., & Piquero, N. L. (2007). Can general strain theory explain white-collar crime? A preliminary investigation of the relationship between strain and select white-collar offenses. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(1), 1-15. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.11.011 Ménard, K. S., & Arter, M. L. (2013). Police officer alcohol use and trauma symptoms: Associations with critical incidents, coping, and social stressors. International journal of stress management, 20(1), 37. Merton, R.K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review 3(5), 672–682. Merton, R.K. (1949). Social structure and anomie: revisions and extensions. In: Anshen, R.N. (Ed.), The Family: Its Functions and Destiny. Harper, New York, pp. 226–257. Merton, R.K. (1957). Social structure and anomie. In: Merton, R.K. (Ed.), Social Theory and Social Structure. The Free Press, New York, pp. 185–214. Merton, R.K. (1957). Continuities in the theory of social structure and anomie. In: Merton, R.K. (Ed.), Social Theory and Social Structure. The Free Press, New York, pp. 215–248. Messner, S. F., & Rosenfeld, R. (2012). Crime and the American dream: Cengage Learning. Messner, S. F., Thome, H., & Rosenfeld, R. (2008). Institutions, anomie, and violent crime: Clarifying and elaborating institutional-anomie theory. International Journal of Conflict and Violence (IJCV), 2(2), 163-181. Valier, C. (2001). Criminal detection and the weight of the past: critical notes on Foucault, subjectivity and preventative control. Theoretical Criminology, 5(4), 425-443. Further Information Anomie/Strain Theory Sociological theory and criminological research: Views from Europe and the United States Featherstone, R., & Deflem, M. (2003). Anomie and strain: Context and consequences of Merton's two theories. Sociological inquiry, 73(4), 471-489. Messner, S. F. (1988). Merton's “social structure and anomie”: The road not taken. Deviant Behavior, 9(1), 33-53. Agnew’s General Strain Theory: Context, Synopsis, and Application Agnew’s General Strain Theory: Context, Synopsis, and Application Jang, S. J., & Rhodes, J. R. (2012). General strain and non-strain theories: A study of crime in emerging adulthood. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 176-186. Home | About Us | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Contact Us Simply Psychology's content is for informational and educational purposes only. Our website is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. © Simply Scholar Ltd - All rights reserved
Is a person who accepts both the societal goals and the approved means to reach them?Reactions to Cultural Goals and Institutionalized Means
He identified five types of reactions: Conformists: Most people are conformists. They accept the goals their society sets for them, as well as the institution-alized means of achieving them.
When people follow socially approved means to success but reject the goals it is called?Ritualism: using the same socially approved means to achieve less elusive goals (more modest and humble). Retreatism: to reject both the cultural goals and the means to obtain it, then find a way to escape it. Rebellion: to reject the cultural goals and means, then work to replace them.
When people accept culturally approved goals and pursue them through the approved means?23. Based on sociologist Robert Merton's strain theory, innovation occurs when people accept culturally-approved goals and pursue them through approved means. Persons who want to achieve success through innovation work hard and save their money.
When individuals are culturally approved means to attain social goals this is known as?Conformity—accepts culturally approved goals; pursues them through culturally approved means.
|