Robert Agnew’s General Strain Theory (GST) extends and refines the classical anomie and strain approaches by broadening the range of sources of strain and by offering a more nuanced, psychologically informed explanation of how strain leads to crime. Unlike Merton, who focused on the disjunction between culturally valued goals and socially legitimate means, Agnew emphasized the individual’s subjective experience of strain and the role of emotions—especially anger—in fostering criminal coping.
Key Points
General Strain Theory (GST)
Main Proponent: Robert Agnew
First Formulation: 1980s–1990s
Country of Origin: United States
Core Idea: CrimeActs or omissions that violate criminal laws and are punishable by the state. results from individuals’ negative emotional reactions to strainful or stressful experiences. Unlike earlier theories, GST identifies multiple forms of strain and emphasizes the role of anger as a mechanism linking strain to delinquency.
Foundation for: Research on emotion and crime, developmental and life-course criminology, integrated theories of crime.
Theory
Building on but moving beyond Merton’s classic strain theory, Agnew’s GST rejects the idea that strain is solely about blocked economic success or class-based barriers to achieving culturally defined goals. Instead, he identifies a broader array of negative experiences that can produce strain for individuals across all social strata.
Agnew distinguishes three major types of strain that can lead to deviance:
- Failure to achieve positively valued goals (e.g., academic success, employment, social status).
- Removal of positively valued stimuli (e.g., loss of a loved one, breakup of a relationship, eviction from home).
- Confrontation with negative stimuli (e.g., child abuse, bullying, chronic conflict, dangerous neighborhoods).
These forms of strain generate negative emotions such as anger, frustration, or depression. Anger is especially important because it both energizes action and creates a desire for retaliation or escape. Lacking effective coping strategies, social support, or self-control, some individuals respond to these emotions through deviant or criminal behavior.
Importantly, Agnew emphasizes that strain is not uniformly criminogenic. Rather, individual differences—including temperament, coping resources, social bonds, and exposure to criminal peers—shape how people respond. While many manage strain through legal means, others lacking these protective factors are more likely to choose crime as a coping mechanism.
Implications for Criminal Policy
GST suggests multiple points of intervention. First, classic social policy goals remain valid: reducing structural inequalities, expanding access to legitimate means of achieving goals, and improving living conditions can reduce strain-producing experiences at the societal level. This aligns with Merton’s idea that „good social policy is good crime policy.“
Second, GST highlights the importance of supporting families and communities in managing loss and conflict. Strengthening social bonds, mentoring programs, and community support can help individuals cope with stress without resorting to crime.
Third, at the individual level, prevention efforts can focus on building coping skills. Programs such as anger management training, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and school-based social-emotional learning aim to help youth recognize, regulate, and redirect their emotional responses. For example, techniques like the „hot chair“ used in social therapy are designed to practice managing frustration and anger safely.
Critical Appraisal & Relevance
Agnew’s General Strain Theory represents a significant theoretical advance over Merton’s model by expanding the sources of strain beyond economic disadvantage and recognizing the emotional processes linking strain to crime. This makes GST more versatile, explaining not only property crime but also violence, substance abuse, and other forms of deviance across social classes.
What does „General“ in General Strain Theory mean?Agnew’s General Strain Theory (GST) is designed as a broad, integrative framework that goes beyond classic strain explanations focused only on economic goals and lower-class crime. The term „General“ reflects its aim to explain a wide variety of crimes across all social classes by recognizing multiple sources of strain—not just blocked economic goals but also the loss of positive stimuli or the presence of negative stimuli. GST also accounts for individual differences in how people respond to strain, including emotional reactions like anger, coping skills, social support, and self-control. By doing so, it offers a more universal model of criminal behavior applicable to many contexts and offenses.
GST has inspired empirical research on the links between victimization, bullying, family disruption, and offending. It has also encouraged integration with control theories (e.g., the role of self-control in coping with strain) and social learning theories (e.g., exposure to deviant peers offering criminal coping strategies).
However, GST also faces critiques. The theory’s breadth and flexibility can make it difficult to falsify empirically. Critics argue that while GST explains why strain can lead to crime, it offers less clarity on why some strained individuals desist. Moreover, its focus on individual emotional processes may underplay broader structural causes of crime and inequalities that shape exposure to strain in the first place.
References
Primary Literature
- Agnew, Robert. (1985). A revised strain theory of delinquency. Social Forces. 64(1), 151-167.
- Agnew, Robert. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology. 30(1), 47-87.
Secondary Literature
- Brown, S., Esbensen, F.-A., Geis, G. (2010): Criminology. Explaining Crime and Its Context. pp. 249–251.
- Vito, G., Maahs, J., Holmes, R. (2007): Criminology. Theory, Research, and Policy. pp. 157f.
Further Information
Video
Robert Agnew’s lecture on Strain Theory at Eastern Kentucky University (2005)
