This paper presents a general strain theory of crime and delinquency that is capable of overcoming the criticisms of previous strain theories. In the first section, strain theory is distinguished from social control and differential association/social learning theory. In the second section, the three major types of strain are described: (1) strain as the actual or anticipated failure to achieve positively valued goals, (2) strain as the actual or anticipated removal of positively valued stimuli, and (3) strain as the actual or anticipated presentation of negatively valued stimuli. In the third section, guidelines for the measurement of strain are presented. And in the fourth section, the major adaptations to strain are described, and those factors influencing the choice of delinquent versus nondelinquent adaptations are discussed.

General strain theory (GST) is usually tested by examining the effect of strain on crime. Researchers, however, have little guidance when it comes to selecting among the many hundreds of types of strain and have trouble explaining why only some of them are related to crime. This article builds on GST by describing the characteristics of strainful events and conditions that influence their relationship to crime. Strains are said to be most likely to result in crime when they (1) are seen as unjust, (2) are seen as high in magnitude, (3) are associated with low social control, and (4) create some pressure or incentive to engage in criminal coping. Drawing on these characteristics, it is predicted that some types of strain will not be related to crime, including types that have dominated the research on strain theory, and that others will be related to crime, including types that have been neglected by empirical researchers.

This study applies Agnew's general strain theory (GST) to two fundamental questions about gender and crime: (1) How can we explain the higher rate of crime among males? (2) How can we explain why females engage in crime? With respect to the first question, the authors suggest that gender differences in types of strain and the reaction to strain help one understand the gender gap in criminal behavior. With respect to the second question, it is argued that several types of strain may lead to female crime under the proper circumstances. In this area, GST has much in common with numerous accounts that explain female crime in terms of oppression.

This paper tests Agnew's (1992) general strain theory (GST) of crime and delinquency. GST argues that strain occurs when others (1) prevent or threaten to prevent you from achieving positively valued goals, (2) remove or threaten to remove positively valued stimuli that you possess, or (3) present or threaten to present you with noxious or negatively valued stimuli. The impact of such strain on delinquency is said to be conditioned by several variables, such as association with delinquent peers and self‐efficacy. Data from a sample of 1,380 New Jersey adolescents provide qualified support for the theory; strain measures of the type described above have a relatively substantial effect on delinquency and drug use. Further, the effect of these strain measures is conditioned by delinquent peers and self‐efficacy, as predicted by GST.

Although Agnew's (1992) general strain theory (GST) has secured a fair degree of support since its introduction, researchers have had trouble explaining why some individuals are more likely than others to react to strain with delinquency. This study uses data from the National Survey of Children to address this issue. Drawing on Agnew (1997) and the psychological research on personality traits, it is predicted that juveniles high in negative emotionality and low in constraint will be more likely to react to strain with delinquency. Data support this prediction.

No abstract

This article draws on Agnew's general strain theory to explain community differences in crime rates. After reviewing the communities and crime research, the author discusses the ways in which community-level variables contribute to strain, including the failure to achieve positively valued goals and the loss of positive stimuli/presentation of negative stimuli. The ways in which community-level variables condition the impact of strain on crime are then examined.

No abstract