Robert Agnew's Theory Of Robert King Merton's General Strain Theory

Robert Agnew developed general strain theory (GST) in 1992 based off of Robert King Merton’s strain theory. The theory explains that people are pressured into crime. Agnew argues there are multiple sources of strain, which include but are not limited to; objective and subjective strains, experienced, vicarious, and anticipated strains. He also discusses which strains are most likely to lead to crime and why. Agnew believes people engage in crime because they experience strains or stressors and that crime is a type of corrective action to cope with, reduce, or escape their strains. Crime is more likely when the individual lacks ability to cope in a legal manner. Strain results from negative relations with others

Agnew states there are three

A variety of strains can be experienced. Objective strains are typically events or conditions that are generally disliked by most people such as being homeless, jobless. Subjective strains on the other hand are what people differ in their subjective evaluations of the same events. Agnew states strains are most likely the causal factor to crime. A high in magnitude or severe stressor such as an unjust crime against you typically leads to the path of criminal activity. Criminal activity is also associated with low social control and minimal emotional bonds. Most criminals create some pressure or incentive for criminal coping. Some stress is easier to resolve through crime rather than a legal route. For

To fill this gap in GST research, the present study aims to assess whether non-stress variables of social bonding theory, social learning theory, and self-control theory, as well as negative emotions intervene and moderate the effects of strain on crime and drug use. The non-stress variables of social bonds and low self-control, but not delinquent associations, as well as trait anger and state depression intercede the effects of strain on crime and drug use, but hypotheses about the moderating effects of these variables receive less support. The central claims of GST need to be expanded to include non-emotive mediators of the effects of stress on crime, given that undesirable excitements are not expected to fully mediate the criminogenic effects of