Causes of the causes of juvenile delinquency: Social disadvantages in the context of Situational Action Theory

Published date01 March 2017
DOI10.1177/1477370816649622
Date01 March 2017
AuthorDebbie Schepers
Subject MatterArticles
/tmp/tmp-17Gt6s95a1xzoD/input 649622EUC0010.1177/1477370816649622European Journal of CriminologySchepers
research-article2016
Article
European Journal of Criminology
2017, Vol. 14(2) 143 –159
Causes of the causes of
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
juvenile delinquency: Social
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370816649622
DOI: 10.1177/1477370816649622
journals.sagepub.com/home/euc
disadvantages in the context
of Situational Action Theory
Debbie Schepers
Bielefeld University, Germany
Abstract
This article focuses on the relationship between crime and social disadvantages by applying
Situational Action Theory (Wikström 2006, 2009; Wikström et al., 2012) to explain the delinquent
behaviour of adolescents. According to Situational Action Theory, criminal acts are the result of
a perception-choice process that is guided by the interaction of a person’s crime propensity
and the criminogenic conditions of the environment. Social disadvantages are not causes of
criminal behaviour but rather causes of the causes. Social disadvantages affect the emergence of
crime propensity and criminogenic exposure of individuals. This relationship between crime and
disadvantages in the context of Situational Action Theory will be empirically tested by applying
structural equation modelling and testing for indirect effects of several structural heterogeneities.
The results show that the relationship between heterogeneity features and delinquency for the
most part is mediated by the theoretical assumptions of SAT.
Keywords
Heterogeneities, juvenile delinquency, Situational Action Theory, social disadvantages
Introduction
The aim of this article is to close in on the research gap concerning social disadvantages
and their role in crime causation, which is described as neglected but important (Nagin
and Paternoster, 1991: 185). Since then, research on disadvantages and crime has increased
(for example, Dannefer, 2003; DiPrete and Eirich, 2006; O’Rand, 1996, 2003; Sampson
and Laub, 1997) but the underlying mechanisms are still unclear. Structural characteristics
such as gender, education or social capital, resulting in social disadvantages, are academi-
cally (for example, Sampson, 2000; Tittle and Meier, 1990) and publicly discussed as
possible causes of criminal behaviour, but the nature of the relationship still remains
Corresponding author:
Debbie Schepers, Faculty of Sociology, Bielefeld University, Postfach 10 01 31, D-33501 Bielefeld, Germany.
Email: debbie.schepers@uni-bielefeld.de

144
European Journal of Criminology 14(2)
misunderstood. This article addresses the discussion of the relationship between social
disadvantages and crime. Its main argument is that heterogeneities and resulting disad-
vantages are not causes of crime but causes of the causes of criminal behaviour. To sup-
port this argument, Situational Action Theory (SAT; Wikström, 2006; Wikström et al.,
2012) will be used to explore the indirect effects of heterogeneities via their impact on the
theoretical assumptions of SAT and their indirect effect on the explanation of delinquent
behaviour. The study ‘Chances and Risks in the Life Course’ will be used to research this
relationship empirically.
Following the argument of Diewald and Faist (2011), heterogeneities are understood
as the starting point, leading to disadvantages as the endpoint of a developmental process.1
Whereas heterogeneities apply to personal differences in a broad general understanding,
disadvantages refer to inequalities of resources and chances of participation, on the one
hand, and to their perception and assessment, on the other hand. By defining heteroge-
neities as ‘individual differences in the underlying propensity to commit delinquent and
criminal acts’ (Mason and Windle, 2002: 480), they can be considered as a mechanism
leading to disadvantages. Crime and delinquent behaviour therefore are the endpoint of
a process of establishing such disadvantages. What seems to be known is that the accu-
mulation of disadvantages accounts for the development of a persistent delinquent life-
style (for example, Sampson and Laub, 1993). When a delinquent life course emerges,
several factors influence this development, reflecting either heterogeneities (for example,
migration status) or disadvantages (for example, discrimination owing to migration status).
Disadvantages resulting in delinquency are hypothesized to stabilize and intensify in a
reciprocal process (Reinecke et al., 2013a). Delinquent behaviour can also be regarded
as the starting point of the development of disadvantages because delinquent behaviour
per se is a feature of heterogeneity. It differs between people and has a long-term effect
on opportunities and participation in several contexts of life. But different approaches
come to inconclusive results and therefore, as Reinecke summarizes, ‘the general mecha-
nisms of social inequality are still unclear and not specified in theoretical terms’ (Reinecke,
2016: 3). Future research should concentrate not only on mechanisms that stabilize a
delinquent life-style, with its associated social disadvantages, but also on mechanisms
supporting turning points and desistance.
Theory and hypotheses
SAT is a recently developed general theory of moral values and moral action that com-
bines both individual and environmental perspectives in an integrative framework for the
explanation of delinquent behaviour. It is based on the assumption that criminal behav-
iour is a moral action, and that a criminal act is committed because it is evaluated as an
action alternative and therefore chosen as one. The probability that criminal behaviour
will occur depends on the (criminal) propensity of a person and his or her exposure to
criminogenic settings. The central idea of SAT is that criminal behaviour is the result of
the interaction between who individuals are (characteristics and experience) and where
they are. SAT is designed to overcome several central problems of criminological theo-
rizing: the ambiguous definition of crime, the missing understanding of explanatory
mechanisms, the poor integration of the different levels of explanation, and the inade-
quate understanding of development and change.

Schepers
145
SAT defines acts of crime as ‘acts that break moral rules of conduct stated in law’
(Wikström et al., 2012: 11). By defining crime as a special case of moral rule-breaking,
SAT offers a generally acceptable definition of crime without being dependent on legal
regulations or different cultural contexts. A further common deficiency, not just in crimi-
nological theorizing, is the lack of mechanistic explanatory frameworks. As the main
mechanism influencing people’s crime involvement, SAT uses the perception-choice
process to explain how the perception of action alternatives and choice influences behav-
iour. The theory states that ‘acts of crime are an outcome of a perception-choice-process
guided by the interaction between a person’s crime propensity and his or her exposure to
criminogenic settings’ (Wikström, 2009: 254). Criminal acts are moral actions and are
therefore affected by the ability of an individual to act in accordance with their morality
and to exercise self-control. Furthermore, the actions of individuals are influenced by the
setting of their environment. Persons with low propensity are less likely to commit crimi-
nal acts, even when they are exposed to criminogenic settings. Individuals with a high
propensity are more likely to commit crimes, especially when exposed to criminal set-
tings. SAT follows a situational model in which propensity and exposure interact, result-
ing in the stimulation of criminal behaviour. Delinquency is the result of an interaction
process between propensity and exposure in a situational context. The perception-choice
process is dependent on individual experience and can be regulated by habits or by delib-
eration in rational decision-making.
As stated by SAT, the immediate causes of (criminal) behaviour are ‘situational’.
However, it cannot be disregarded that one’s social background and acquaintances
throughout the life course could be a legitimate cause in directing one to criminal
tendencies. These preceding factors, taking effect before the proposed interactional
mechanism of propensity and exposure, are defined as causes of the causes. They can
influence one’s actions by substantiating how people may develop a crime propensity
and why certain people tend to select into criminogenic settings – despite not being a
direct cause (Wikström et al., 2012: 10). An individual’s social background and life
developments should thus be analysed as a cause of the cause because it potentially
adds an influential aspect to one’s crime propensity and possible exposure to criminal
settings. As discussed in several other criminological theories and examined in empirical
research, there are a lot more correlates to crime. SAT acknowledges the importance of
all kinds of personal factors and processes over the life course while recognizing that
this is not a direct cause of delinquency. This strengthens the argument that the ‘causes
of the causes
’ of crime are almost impossible to comprehend if the causal effect of
criminal behaviour is not systematically recognized as well. SAT proposes that the
causes of the causes are ‘best analysed in terms of processes of (social and personal)
emergence, and processes of (social and self) selection’ (Wikström et al., 2012:...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT