Testing General Strain Theory

Testing General Strain Theory

Robert Agnew’s General Strain Theory is centered on the idea of strain leading to the individual committing a crime. According to Agnew strains are events or conditions that are disliked by an individual, and they result from a negative relation with others.(Agnew, 1992) Strain Theory also focuses on delinquency as the result of pressure by negative states such as anger and other negative emotions caused by adverse relationships. These negative relations consist of a relationship that restricts or eliminates the achievement of positive goals and positive stimuli, and one that might present a negative stimuli. (Agnew, 1992) Agnew discusses several types of strains, objective, subjective, experienced, vicarious, and anticipated. Objective strains are commonly avoided by most people. Subjective strains are influenced by an individual’s personality and they differ from one person to the next. Experienced strains are ones that has been experienced. Vicarious strains affect others around the individual but have a close relationship, which tends to reflect on the individual’s behavior. Last is anticipated strain, which is predicted to take place in the future by an individual, and they would commit a crime in order to prevent this foreseen strain. (Agnew, 1992)

Agnew states that negative effects like anger promote the desire to correct a situation, which provides delinquency as a viable option. Delinquency can also be used to ease a strain caused by a failure to achieve a positively values goal, protect a positively valued goal, or neutralize a negative stimuli. But he believes that not all strains lead to crime. Strains must be high in magnitude, unjust, associated with low social control, or create an incentive for criminal coping. (Agnew, 1992) Strains that are high in magnitude tend to be more sever and result in a strong negative reaction. These strains threaten the achievement of an individual’s positive goals, which result in delinquency. An unjust strain forces an angry reaction from an individual, and they are an intentional violation of a person’s personal rights. Strains that are associated with low social control can cause an individual to use crime as a means of coping with the situation. (Agnew, 1992) Finally a strain that creates incentive for criminal coping corners an individual in a situation where he cannot achieve a goal by legal means, so he uses crime to resolve a problem or achieve that goal.

Not all individuals who are under strain commit crimes. Agnew states that an individual will have a higher chance of summiting a crime if he is faced with more than one strain at a time, or is constantly struggling with ongoing strains. (Agnew, 1992) Agnew believes that strain has a tendency of raising the possibility of crime because it leads to negative emotion and low constraint which leads to exaggerated anger and they resort to crime. But Agnew does not believe that all individuals under strain resort to crime as a form of coping. (Agnew, 1992) He provides strategies for reducing the possibility that an individual with commit a crime as cause of strain. Including the increase of social support and control, removing oneself from strains that will lead to crime, to be able to handle a situation and avoid a strain, and last is to not spend time with any delinquents who favor crime. (Agnew, 1992)

A study that was conducted by Tony R Smith, Michael Langenbacher, Christopher Kudlac, and Adam Fera titled “Deviant Reactions to the College Pressure Cooker: A Test of General Strain Theory on Undergraduate Students in the United States” that was published in the International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences supports Agnew’s argument in the General Strain Theory. The study involved an anonymous survey given to about 500 undergraduate students located in the United States. The study looked at the idea of whether academic strains increased the possibility of cheating. (Smith, 2013) It found support of the theory, saying that “frustration related to blocked goals and cumulative stress were significant predictors of exam cheating and plagiarism.” Smith and his colleges tested the following hypothesis.

The first hypothesis states that “Personal academic shortcomings