From Merton's strain theory to general strain theory
Merton (1938) argued that anomie and deviance arise when a society emphasizes cultural goals such as wealth and success while denying some groups legitimate means to achieve them. This strain theory was mainly a macro-level explanation of lower-class crime and was criticized for failing to explain middle-class crime or why many people who fail to reach their goals do not offend. Agnew (1992) proposed general strain theory, broadening the range of strains and focusing on individuals' emotional responses. Unlike differential association theory, which holds that crime is learned from delinquent peers, or control theories, which attribute crime to weak social bonds, it holds that negative relationships and experiences push people toward crime.
Three types of strain and negative emotions
Agnew (1992) identified three sources of strain: failure to achieve positively valued goals such as money, status or fair treatment; the removal of positively valued stimuli, such as the death of a family member or a breakup; and the presentation of negative stimuli, such as abuse, bullying or discrimination. These strains produce negative emotions such as anger, frustration, depression and anxiety, and anger, which leads people to blame others, is especially strongly linked to crime. Not everyone who experiences strain offends, however. Social support, problem-solving skills and self-control make legitimate coping easier, while delinquent peers and beliefs that justify crime make criminal coping more likely. Agnew (2001) specified that strains seen as unjust, high in magnitude, associated with low social control and creating pressure for criminal coping are most likely to lead to crime.
Evidence and applications
Analyzing adolescent data, Agnew and White (1992) reported that negative life events and relationships were related to delinquency and drug use. Broidy (2001) tested the path from strain to crime through negative emotions such as anger and found partial support. Broidy and Agnew (1997) explained that men and women experience different strains and emotional responses: men tend to express anger outwardly in violence, while women more often experience depression or guilt alongside anger, leading to self-destructive behavior. Agnew (2006) extended the theory to explain differences in crime rates at the community and societal levels as well as among individuals. General strain theory is now applied to research on school violence, cyberbullying, hate crime and more.
FAQ
- What is general strain theory in simple terms?
- It holds that when people under heavy stress become angry or frustrated and have no healthy way to cope, they may commit crime or delinquency. Typical stressors include failing to reach goals, losing something valued and being abused or bullied.
- How does general strain theory differ from Merton's strain theory?
- Merton explained class differences in crime mainly through failure to achieve success goals because of social structure. Agnew's general strain theory adds loss and negative treatment and focuses on emotions such as anger and on how individuals cope.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672–682. Merton's classic strain theory — the root Agnew built on.
- Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47–88. The founding article — three types of strain and negative emotions.
- Agnew, R., & White, H. R. (1992). An empirical test of general strain theory. Criminology, 30(4), 475–500. The first empirical test with adolescent data.
- Broidy, L., & Agnew, R. (1997). Gender and crime: A general strain theory perspective. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34(3), 275–306. Explains gender differences in crime through strain and emotion.
- Agnew, R. (2001). Building on the foundation of general strain theory: Specifying the types of strain most likely to lead to crime and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(4), 319–361. Specifies which strains are most criminogenic.
- Broidy, L. M. (2001). A test of general strain theory. Criminology, 39(1), 9–36. Tests the anger pathway from strain to crime.
- Agnew, R. (2006). Pressured into Crime: An Overview of General Strain Theory. Los Angeles: Roxbury. An accessible overview of the whole theory and its applications.
