Strain Theory: Insights into Crime and Society

In the vast variety of environments, we ponder why some individuals commit crimes and others do not. For those that have risen above over simplified explanations of good and bad, Strain theory offers some profound insight into the roots of criminality. Strain theory, also known as Anomie Theory, was first developed by Robert Merton. Following Merton’s original framework several prominent expanded on his work. These theories explore how societal pressures can lead individuals to deviate from accepted norms and engage in criminal activities. By examining the disjunction between culturally prescribed goals—such as financial success—and the legitimate means available to achieve these aspirations, Strain Theory reveals a poignant narrative about inequality and frustration that resonates throughout various socioeconomic strata. It prompts us to consider: when faced with overwhelming barriers to success, what choices do individuals make in their pursuit of fulfillment?

As we delve deeper into this foundational theory within criminology, it becomes clear that understanding Strain Theory is essential for addressing not only crime prevention but also broader social issues. The evolution of this theory over decades reflects ongoing dialogues surrounding justice, opportunity, and societal structure. From its roots in Émile Durkheim’s concept of anomie to modern interpretations by scholars like Robert Agnew through General Strain Theory (GST), each iteration sheds light on how varying levels of strain influence human behavior across different contexts. This exploration not only enriches our comprehension of criminal motivations but also serves as a call to action for policymakers seeking effective interventions amidst rising rates of deviance in contemporary society.

Introduction: Understanding the Role of Societal Pressure in Criminal Behavior

Strain Theory, primarily articulated by sociologist Robert K. Merton, posits that crime and deviance arise from the inherent tensions between culturally approved goals and the legitimate means available to achieve them. At its core, the theory suggests that society sets certain aspirations—most notably financial success—as benchmarks for individual achievement. However, not all individuals have equal access to the resources or opportunities necessary to reach these goals due to structural inequalities within social systems. This disparity creates a sense of strain or pressure among those who find themselves unable to attain societal expectations through conventional pathways.

Historical Foundations of Strain Theory

Sociological Positivism

Sociological positivism is a philosophical and theoretical approach to sociology that emphasizes the use of the scientific method to study and understand the social world. It posits that social phenomena, like natural phenomena, can be objectively observed, measured, and analyzed to discover universal laws governing human behavior and social structures.

The core idea is that society operates according to its own set of “social laws” or principles that are just as discoverable as the laws of physics or biology. To uncover these laws, positivists use empirical, quantitative methods, such as surveys, statistics, and controlled observation, to collect data. This approach was championed by Auguste Comte (1830-1842), who is considered the father of sociology, and it seeks to move beyond abstract speculation to a concrete, evidence-based understanding of how society functions.

A primary goal of sociological positivism is to use this objective, scientific knowledge to predict and control human behavior, ultimately to solve social problems and guide social change toward a more orderly and harmonious society.

Strain Theory and Sociological Positivism

Strain theory is considered to have deep roots in sociological positivism because it aligns with the core tenets of this intellectual tradition, which posits that human behavior, including crime and deviance, is determined by social forces rather than individual free will. Robert K. Merton, a foundational figure in strain theory, explicitly developed his ideas based on the major assumptions of sociology, a discipline that rejected the classical school’s emphasis on self-interest in favor of the view that people are “naturally social” (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990, p. 70).

Consequently, crime, from this positivistic sociological perspective, must arise from “unnatural circumstances” or “abnormal or stressful conditions” within society that compel individuals to deviate, such as a discrepancy between culturally valued goals (like monetary success) and the legitimate opportunities available to achieve them. This framework was a direct reaction against earlier pathological theories that attributed crime to individual biological or psychological defects, instead arguing that deviant behavior is a “normal reaction by otherwise normal people” to societal pressures and structural inequalities (Agnew, 1992, p. 112).

Durkheim’s Anomie

The conceptual roots of Strain Theory lie in the writings of Émile Durkheim, a pioneering French sociologist. Durkheim introduced the concept of “anomie” in his classic work, “Suicide,” published in 1897 (Durkheim, 1897/1951). Anomie refers to a state of normlessness or breakdown of social regulation, which occurs when societal rules become unclear or ineffective during periods of rapid change. Durkheim argued that such conditions could lead to elevated rates of deviance and crime, as individuals lose their sense of belonging and guidance.

Durkheim elaborated that anomie is a profound societal condition. The collective regulatory power over individual aspirations weakens. This leads to an absence of clear moral guidelines. This state commonly arises during periods of rapid social or economic change, such as industrialization, economic crises, or other “disturbances in the collective order,” which disrupt established social structures and traditional norms (Durkheim, 1897). In such an environment, individuals’ social needs and desires, particularly for wealth, prestige, or power, become unregulated and “insatiable,” as the usual societal limits on aspirations are removed (Messner & Rosenfeld, 2007).

This “longing for infinity” and the constant pursuit of an “indefinite goal” can lead to widespread discontentment, frustration, and a sense of meaninglessness, as desires continually outstrip the possibility of their fulfillment (Durkheim, 1897). Consequently, individuals are more prone to “deviant behavior” as a “normal reaction” to these abnormal and stressful societal conditions, or as a “release” of natural inclinations previously restrained by strong social solidarity (Cloward & Ohlin, 1960).

Durkheim’s analysis was largely macro-level, focusing on social facts and the upheavals of industrialization, but his legacy provided a fertile ground for further theorization in criminology (Messner & Rosenfeld, 2007).

Merton’s Strain Theory

Robert K. Merton expanded upon Durkheim’s ideas in his influential essay, “Social Structure and Anomie” (Merton, 1938). Merton observed that American society strongly emphasized material success—such as wealth, status, and achievement—but did not provide equal access to the legitimate means of attaining these goals. When individuals are blocked from achieving culturally approved ambitions, they may experience strain that prompts them to pursue alternative, sometimes criminal, strategies.

Merton’s childhood background may have influenced his views on crime. He was the son of a carpenter and truck driver in the slums of South Philadelphia, and he had experiences with juvenile gangs. A salient feature of Merton’s theory is that not every person has equal opportunity to achieve success in America.

Goals and Means

In Robert K. Merton’s Strain Theory, crime and deviance arise from a fundamental disjunction between culturally prescribed goals and the legitimate institutionalized means available to achieve them. Merton observed that American society, for instance, places an exaggerated emphasis on the goal of monetary success and material wealth, with everyone being socialized to aspire to high achievement and prosperity (Akers, 2000, p. 143).

This “American Dream” fosters a belief that success is open to all, and worth is often judged by material accumulation. However, the social structure concurrently imposes limitations on the legitimate means (like good education or stable jobs) for attaining these goals, especially for individuals in lower social classes (Moyer, 2001, p. 61). This societal malintegration, where there’s a strong cultural push for success but unequal access to approved paths, creates intense frustration or strain. To alleviate this strain, individuals may adapt by turning to illegitimate or criminal means to achieve the desired cultural goals, such as theft, drug dealing, or prostitution, if legitimate avenues are blocked.

Merton’s Five Modes of Individual Adaptation to Strain

According to Merton, the disjunction between culturally prescribed goals and institutionalized means creates intense frustration or strain within individuals. He posits that this is particularly salient in American society because of its strong emphasis on monetary success. This disjunction compels individuals to find ways to cope with this pressure that make their lives more tolerable. Merton’s concept of disjunction shares many similarities with Leon Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory.

Festinger theorized that cognitive dissonance motivated action to reduce the discomfort of opposing forces. He wrote: “Cognitive dissonance can be seen as an antecedent condition which leads to activity oriented toward dissonance reduction just as hunger leads to activity oriented toward hunger reduction” (Festinger, 1957, p. 3).

Merton posits that individuals address the dissonance between goals and means through different “modes of adaptation” or “logically possible, alternative modes of adjustment” adopt in response to these societal pressures, ranging from conforming behavior to various forms of deviance (Merton, 1938). Merton presents five modes of adaptation: conformity, innovation, Ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion.

Conformity

In Merton’s Strain Theory, he identifies conformity as the most common and widely diffused mode of individual adaptation to the pressures arising from the disjunction between cultural goals and institutionalized means. This adaptation is considered the ideal response in a stable society (Sanders, 1981, p. 44). Merton posits that if conformity was not “the most common and widely diffused adaptation, “the stability and continuity of the society could not be maintained” (Merton, 1938).

An individual employing this mode accepts the culturally prescribed goals, such as monetary success. They also accept the legitimate, institutionalized means available for achieving them. They continue to strive for success within these conventional boundaries, for instance, by working and saving. Despite facing the inherent societal strain where access to these legitimate means may be limited, particularly for some segments of the population, conformists persist in their pursuit of goals through approved channels.

Innovation

Merton identifies innovation as the most common deviant response to the disjunction between cultural goals and institutionalized means. This mode of adaptation occurs when individuals accept the culturally prescribed goals. These goals include a strong societal emphasis on monetary success and material wealth. However, they reject or abandon the legitimate, institutionalized means of achieving them (Akers, 2000, p 144). Merton noted that this is particularly prevalent in societies like the United States, where there’s a universal aspiration for success but unequal access to approved avenues (like good jobs or education) due to social stratification.

Faced with this intense frustration or strain, innovators resort to illegitimate or criminal means to attain the desired cultural goals, such as theft, drug dealing, or other income-producing offenses. This adaptation signifies that the individual has assimilated the cultural emphasis on the goal but has not equally internalized the norms governing the ways and means of attainment (Moyer, 2001, p. 62).

Ritualism

Ritualism describes an adaptation where individuals reject or abandon the culturally prescribed goals (such as high monetary success or social mobility) but continue to accept and rigidly adhere to the legitimate, institutionalized means. This mode involves scaling down one’s aspirations. This makes them more easily satisfied, effectively giving up the struggle to “get ahead.” The ritualist concentrates on retaining what little has been gained, meticulously following societal rules and norms, primarily to avoid risking trouble or experiencing the frustration of failing to meet lofty cultural expectations. Merton suggested that this adaptation is particularly characteristic of lower-middle-class Americans and can be exemplified by a “frightened bureaucrat” who meticulously performs their duties without any expectation of advancement (Sanders, 1981).

In the 1993 film “Falling Down,” Michael Douglas’s character, William “D-Fens” Foster, embodies the Ritualism adaptation within Robert Merton’s Strain Theory. He is a disaffected defense engineer who has lost his job. Instead of pursuing the culturally prescribed goal of financial success, he continues to follow the established means or “rituals” of society. This is best illustrated by Foster’s rigid adherence to his daily routine. He continues commuting to work, even though he has been laid off.

Michael Douglas’s character maintains the appearance of being a functioning member of society by following the ritualistic pattern of his daily commute, but he has abandoned the very goal (a job and financial success) that the ritual was meant to serve. This ritualistic behavior, while a departure from the conventional goal, is a coping mechanism for his inability to achieve success through legitimate means. It provides him with a sense of purpose and order in a world where he feels powerless.

Retreatism

This adaptation represents the action of rejecting the culturally prescribed goals. These include goals such as monetary success. It also involves rejecting the legitimate and institutionalized means for achieving them. This adaptation is characterized as an “escapist response,” where individuals effectively become “societal dropouts,” giving up on the struggle to achieve success and abandoning the effort to pursue goals through any means (Akers, 2000).

We see this coping adaptation with the growing number of people choosing alternate paths to living, such as in lying flatism. Karen Horney describes individuals adopting this adaptation this way: “They resign, do not dare to venture into something new, expect nothing from life, put their goals too low, and hence live beneath their abilities and psychic means” (Horney, 1950).

Merton described retreatists as being “in society but not of it,” or “true aliens,” who employ “escape mechanisms” to eliminate the conflict and intense frustration arising from their inability to attain goals through either legitimate or illegitimate avenues. Common examples of individuals Merton placed in this category include chronic drunkards, drug addicts, vagrants, and the severely mentally ill. This adaptation signifies a complete withdrawal from societal demands, leading to a state of being “asocialized” (Merton, 1938).

Rebellion

Rebellion is a distinctive mode of adaptation where individuals reject both the culturally prescribed goals and the legitimate, institutionalized means for achieving them, and crucially, endeavor to replace them with new ones (Akers, 2000). This adaptation stands apart from others because it represents a transitional response that actively seeks to change the existing social structure, rather than merely accommodating within it. Rebels become alienated from prevailing standards, perceiving them as arbitrary, and aim to introduce a modified social order where, for example, cultural standards of success are sharply altered and there’s a closer alignment between merit, effort, and reward (Merton, 1938). Examples of this mode of adaptation include organized movements such as the counterculture, hippie movement, or radical movements, which might advocate for a “violent overthrow of the system” to establish new ideologies and means.

---

Merton’s theory provided a framework for understanding how social structures contribute to criminality, emphasizing the importance of both goals and means (Merton, 1938).

Extensions

Albert Cohen and Subcultural Strain

Albert K. Cohen (1955) followed Merton, emphasizing that structural sources of strain lead to deviant adaptations by the lower class. Cohen expanded on Merton’s general strain theory. He focused on status deprivation as the primary source of strain. This was rather than purely economic failure. Cohen argued that while all youth are initially socialized to aspire to conventional success, lower-class boys often find themselves ill-equipped to meet the middle-class standards (such as ambition, individual responsibility, self-denial, and respect for property) prevalent in institutions like the school system (Akers & Sellers, 2009, p. 185).

These expectations, which Cohen termed “middle-class measuring rods,” confront these boys in schools, leading to profound experiences of frustration, failure, shame, and bitterness due to their inability to achieve status and acceptance through legitimate conventional means. Cohen’s interest was to explain the existence and content of this delinquent subculture itself, rather than individual delinquent acts.

Collective Frustration

To cope with this shared collective status frustration, lower-class boys often coalesce and engage in a collective “reaction formation” (Akers, 2000). This involves establishing new norms and criteria for status that are frequently the direct antithesis of middle-class values. The theory primarily posits that deviance is a group phenomenon learned within subcultural contexts as a reaction to social strains (limited means).

For example, if the middle class values non-aggression and polite classroom behavior, the delinquent subculture elevates aggressive toughness and disdain for academic achievement as sources of status. This behavior, characterized by Cohen as “malicious,” “negativistic,” and “non-utilitarian,” such as theft and vandalism, provides a means for these boys to gain the status and approval they are denied in mainstream society, effectively inverting the conventional value system. This adaptation is a group solution, arising when individuals with similar problems find a “sympathetic moral climate” to collectively create new norms (Cohen, 1955).

Cloward and Ohlin: Differential Opportunity Theory

Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin’s Differential Opportunity Theory builds upon Robert K. Merton’s Strain Theory, asserting that while strain refers to the disparity between culturally prescribed goals, such as monetary success, and the legitimate, institutionalized means to achieve them. This strain provides the motivation for deviance. The specific form of delinquent adaptation that emerges is determined by the availability of illegitimate opportunity structures (Messner & Rosenfeld, 2007). Unlike Merton, who primarily focused on blocked legitimate means and implicitly assumed open access to illegitimate ones, Cloward and Ohlin posited that access to illegal means is also differentially distributed across social strata. This theoretical integration with the cultural deviance perspective explains how specific types of delinquent subcultures arise as collective solutions to the intense frustration experienced by lower-class youth when conventional avenues are blocked (Cloward & Ohlin, 1960, p. 150).

Three Subcultures

Cloward and Ohlin identified three distinct subcultures. The criminal subculture emerges in organized urban areas. In these areas, established adult criminal networks provide opportunities for learning and practicing income-producing offenses like theft and drug dealing. The conflict subculture develops in disorganized neighborhoods. These neighborhoods lack both legitimate and stable illegitimate opportunities. This lack leads to violence and aggressive behavior as a primary means to achieve status. This occurs in a climate of intense frustration and weakened social controls (Rojek & Jensen, 1995, p. 139).

The retreatist subculture is composed of “double failures.” These individuals are blocked from both legitimate and illegitimate means and respond by withdrawing from society through drug addiction or chronic alcoholism. They effectively abandon both cultural goals and the means to achieve them. Thus, Differential Opportunity Theory emphasizes that structural conditions not only generate pressure for deviance but also shape the specific nature of deviant adaptations through the types of illicit opportunities available in a given social milieu (Cloward & Ohlin, 1960, p. 150).

Robert Agnew’s Contributions

Robert Agnew has made significant contributions to strain theory by developing General Strain Theory (GST), which substantially revises and broadens earlier strain models, such as those proposed by Merton, Cohen, and Cloward and Ohlin. While classic strain theories primarily focused on the macro-level structural sources of strain (e.g., blocked access to material success for lower-class individuals), Agnew’s GST takes a micro-level, social psychological approach, concentrating on the individual and their immediate social environment. Agnew explains that his theory focuses on the individual and their “immediate social environment” (Agnew,1992). While the theory is from the micro-level of the individual, it has “macro-implications” on a wider social psychology level.

Three Major Types of Deviance-Producing Strain

Agnew’s most notable contribution is broadening the concept of strain itself beyond merely the failure to achieve positively valued goals (like monetary success or middle-class status). He identifies three major types of deviance-producing strain:

• Failure to achieve positively valued goals: This includes the traditional disjuncture between aspirations and expectations, but Agnew expands it to encompass more immediate goals and failures due to individual inadequacies (not just blocked opportunities). He also incorporates the gap between expectations and actual achievements, and the discrepancy between fair/just outcomes and actual outcomes, drawing from research on justice and equity (Agnew, 1992).
• Removal of positive or desired stimuli: This category includes experiences like the loss of a loved one, a breakup, or moving to a new school, which are significant sources of stress (Akers, 2000, p. 159).
• Confrontation with negative stimuli: This refers to experiences such as verbal threats, physical pain, abuse, or other noxious conditions that individuals seek to escape or terminate (Agnew, 1992).

---

Crucially, Agnew posits that these strains increase the likelihood of individuals experiencing negative emotions, most notably anger, which is the most critical emotional reaction in GST (Akers & Sellers, 2009, p. 199). Anger, by increasing felt injury, creating a desire for retaliation, energizing action, and lowering inhibitions, directly predisposes individuals to delinquency. Agnew’s theory views crime and delinquency as an adaptation to stress, whatever its source, and this adaptation depends on various internal and external constraints, such as peer associations and beliefs. This broader scope also means that strain can be experienced by individuals in any social class or race, not just the lower classes, allowing GST to explain a wider range of delinquent behavior.

Cumulative Impact of Negative Relations

Agnew also emphasizes the cumulative impact of negative relations, suggesting that stressful life events have an additive or interactive effect on delinquency once a certain threshold is reached. He highlights the importance of measuring the magnitude, recency, duration, and clustering of adverse events when assessing strain. Furthermore, Agnew specifies what types of strain are most likely to lead to criminal coping, including those perceived as unjust, high in magnitude, undermining social control, and pressuring individuals into criminal associations. He also explores various cognitive, emotional, and behavioral coping strategies (e.g., minimizing importance, reinterpreting negative events, or blaming others) that individuals employ, explaining why many strained individuals do not turn to delinquency (Agnew, 1992).

While distinct from social control and social learning theories (by focusing on negative relationships and pressure, as opposed to absence of relationships/drift or positive relationships/desire), Agnew’s GST moves closer to these theories by incorporating some of their explanatory variables, particularly in outlining factors that influence adaptive choices. His later work also integrates concepts from genetics, evolutionary psychology, and neuroscience, identifying “super traits” like self-control and irritability that influence how individuals interact with their life domains.

Empirically, GST has shown some support, faring better than earlier strain theories, although more research is needed, particularly regarding the precise role of anger as an intervening mechanism and the predicted conditioning effects. His work has also informed policy recommendations, advocating for family and school interventions to reduce adversity and enhance coping skills.

Critiques of Strain Theory

Despite its significant influence, Strain Theory has faced substantial criticism, particularly regarding its scope and focus. Some scholars argue that it overemphasizes economic goals and ignores other sources of strain, such as interpersonal relationships or systemic discrimination (Agnew, 1992). The early models of strain theory primarily focused on the strain arising from the disparity between culturally prescribed goals. These goals included monetary success or middle-class status. The legitimate means available to achieve them were particularly limited for lower-class individuals. Critics argued that this narrow emphasis made the theory less effective at explaining middle-class delinquency and neglected other important goals (Agnew, 1992).

Agnew’s Theory Resolves These Critiques

Robert Agnew’s General Strain Theory (GST), however, directly addressed these limitations. It broadened the concept of strain beyond simply the failure to achieve positively valued goals. Agnew identified two additional major types of deviance-producing strain: the actual or anticipated removal of positive or desired stimuli (e.g., loss of a loved one, a breakup, or moving to a new school), and the actual or anticipated confrontation with negative stimuli (e.g., verbal threats, physical pain, or abuse). This expansion allows GST to explain a wider range of delinquent behavior across various social strata, moving beyond the traditional focus on economic deprivation (Akers, 2000).

Individual Differences in Response to Strain

A second significant critique is that Strain Theory initially struggled to explain why not all individuals who experience strain resort to crime. Early strain theories were criticized for assuming a “moral man” who deviates only under “tremendous pressure.” They did not fully account for how moral constraints are overcome. They also failed to explain why individuals with already weak ties to conventional order might deviate without such intense pressure. Agnew’s GST also provides a more comprehensive account of the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral coping strategies individuals employ to manage strain. These strategies include ignoring or minimizing the importance of adversity, cognitively reinterpreting it as “not that bad,” or even accepting the strain as deserved.

Others point out that not all individuals facing strain resort to crime; factors such as personality, coping mechanisms, and social support play crucial roles (Agnew, 1992; Messner & Rosenfeld, 2007).

Assumptions about Motivation and Morality

Some critiques point to the theories underlying assumptions and morality that primarily revolve around its portrayal of human nature. Classic strain theories operate on the fundamental assumption that individuals are inherently moral beings who desire to conform to societal rules and values. Consequently, these theories posit that only immense psychological pressure, such as intense frustration or discontent arising from blocked legitimate desires (e.g., for success), can compel individuals to resort to deviant behavior.

Critics argue this assumption builds “unnecessary pressure” into the explanation, especially if many individuals’ ties to conventional order are already weak or nonexistent. This “moral man” perspective struggles to adequately explain how individuals, who are presumed to believe strongly that their actions are wrong, can overcome these moral obstacles to commit deviant acts (Hirschi, 1969, p. 5). This often leads to a problematic implicit suggestion. It implies a neutralization of moral constraints when deviance occurs. This requires its own motivational force. Strain theory struggles to provide this force. Furthermore, the theory’s reliance on fixed, intense pressure makes it difficult to account for maturational reform, where most delinquent youth eventually desist from crime despite the underlying structural conditions of strain often remaining unchanged in adulthood.

Empirical Support and Contemporary Applications

Numerous studies have examined the predictive power of Strain Theory and its extensions. Research demonstrates that individuals facing economic hardship, social exclusion, or repeated victimization are more likely to engage in criminal behavior (Broidy & Agnew, 1997).

Applications

Strain theory, in its various forms, offers several applications for crime prevention. It provides intervention methods by addressing the underlying pressures that can lead individuals to deviant behavior. These applications range from broad societal changes to specific individual and family-focused programs.

Here are some applications of strain theory:

Promotion of Economic Opportunities

• Applications aim to promote the integration of cultural goals and socially approved means by redistributing opportunities within the class system.
• Programs inspired by Cloward and Ohlin’s differential opportunity theory, such as the Mobilization for Youth project in New York in the 1960s, sought to enhance legitimate opportunities for lower-class youth through job opportunities, education, and skill training. The goal was to counteract criminal activity by offering greater access to legitimate routes to success (Akers & Sellers, 2009).

Community and Neighborhood Development

Early initiatives like the Chicago Area Projects and Boston’s Mid-City Project in the 1930s and 1950s aimed at community or neighborhood organization and working with delinquent gangs (Akers, 2000). These programs were rooted in the idea that addressing social disorganization and enhancing opportunities could reduce crime.

Strengthening Non-Economic Institutions

Messner and Rosenfeld’s institutional-anomie theory suggests that enhancing legitimate economic opportunities alone might be counterproductive by simply fueling the desire for wealth. Instead, they recommend strengthening non-economic institutions (like family and education) to create a more balanced social structure. This includes policies such as pro-family economic policies (e.g., family leave, flex time, on-site child care), loosening the strong ties between academic performance and future economic prospects to ensure economic survival even for those with limited academic achievement, and creating broader social and civic participation through national service programs.

Targeting Individual-Level Strain and Coping Mechanisms (General Strain Theory – GST)

Robert Agnew’s General Strain Theory (GST) focuses on a broader range of strains. It includes the failure to achieve goals, the removal of positive stimuli, and the presentation of negative stimuli. Applications derived from GST center on equipping individuals, particularly youth, with better coping mechanisms and reducing their exposure to adverse conditions:

• Family and school interventions: To reduce adversity in a youth’s social environment.
• Parent management training and functional family therapy: This approach aims to train parents in effective parenting skills. It includes teaching supervision, discipline, and the consistent use of rewards and punishments.
• Social skills training: For children and youth, to help them reduce behaviors that provoke negative reactions from others.
• Increasing social support: For youth through counseling, mediation, and advocacy programs.
• Training in non-delinquent coping strategies: This includes anger control, problem-solving, and stress management to help adolescents respond to negative stimuli in constructive ways.

---

Agnew also notes that many applied efforts, such as restorative justice programs, are compatible with general strain theory by focusing on addressing harm and reintegrating individuals (Akers & Sellers, 2009).

Associated Concepts

• System Justification Theory: This theory proposes that people have a motivation to defend the status quo. They justify the existing social, economic, and political arrangements.
• Social Stress Theory: This theory posits that individuals with a lower social status are more likely to experience stress. They have a greater susceptibility to its negative effects. This, in turn, increases their risk of developing mental health issues.
• Convoy Theory: This theory explains the idea that individuals are surrounded by a network of relationships. These relationships are both close and more distant. Together, they form a “convoy” of social support throughout their lives. This network includes family members, friends, colleagues, and other acquaintances who provide varying levels of support, guidance, and companionship.
• Subculture of Violence Theory: This theory proposes that certain groups or subcultures within society develop norms and values. These norms and values condone or even encourage the use of violence.
• Social Disorganization Theory: This theory posits that the breakdown of social structures within a community can lead to increased crime. It can also lead to deviant behavior. It posits that communities with weak social ties, high levels of poverty, and residential instability lack the collective efficacy they need. These communities struggle to maintain social order.
• Differential Association Theory: This Theory posits that criminal behavior is learned through social interaction. It is not inherited. It is also not developed through psychological pathology.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

In conclusion, Strain Theory serves as a vital lens. It helps us understand the complexities of criminal behavior. It also clarifies societal pressures. We trace the historical foundation from Durkheim’s concept of anomie. Then, we examine Merton’s comprehensive framework. These show how systemic inequalities and cultural aspirations interact to produce strain. This interplay not only highlights the challenges faced by individuals in navigating their paths toward success but also underscores the broader implications for social policy and crime prevention. The theory reminds us that deviance is often a rational response to structural limitations rather than merely an individual failure.

We reflect on the contemporary applications of Strain Theory. It becomes evident that addressing these societal disparities is crucial. Accordingly, resolving societal disparities is necessary for fostering a more equitable opportunity for obtaining the American dream. All individuals should have access to legitimate means of achieving their goals. Through community development initiatives, educational programs, and improved support systems, we can mitigate the strains that drive some towards deviant behavior. Ultimately, embracing this theoretical framework equips us with valuable insights into not just understanding crime but actively working towards creating a society where everyone has the opportunity to thrive within conventional boundaries—an aspiration well worth pursuing for future generations.

Last Update: August 22, 2025