Exploring the Relationship between Strain and Some Neutralization Techniques
| Published date | 01 January 2009 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370808098106 |
| Date | 01 January 2009 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Volume 6 (1): 73–88: 1477-3708
DOI: 10.1177/1477370808098106
Copyright © 2009 European Society of
Criminology and SAGE Publications
Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC
www.sagepublications.com
Exploring the Relationship between Strain
and Some Neutralization Techniques
Giacinto Froggio
Institute ‘Progetto Uomo’, Italy
Nereo Zamaro
National Institute of Statistics, Italy
Massimo Lori
National Institute of Statistics, Italy
ABSTRACT
Classic strain theorists, such as Cohen (1955) and Cloward and Ohlin (1960),
placed the emphasis on the relationship between strain and neutralization
techniques. They argued that strains foster the adoption of beliefs favourable to
crime. According to General Strain Theory(GST), stressful events are most likely
to result in crime when a form of criminal reasoning already exists in the
individual’s mind. But few researchers have tested this idea. This study is one of
the first to apply GST to a sample of 500 Italian subjects, in an attempt to merge
two important theories: Agnew’s theory and the neutralization theory. We aimed
to test whether or not there is a combined effect between strain and some
techniques of neutralization, especially with respect to two different criminal
behaviours: major and minor crimes. The results provide partial support for the
core idea of GST, namely of there being a relationship between strain, anger and
crime.
KEY WORDS
Juvenile Delinquency / Neutralization Techniques / Strain.
Introduction
Agnew’s General Strain Theory (GST) is today an important explanation of
juvenile delinquency that enjoys good empirical support (e.g. Froggio 2007).
Prevailing over Merton’s (1938) classic strain theory, GST (Agnew 1992)
maintains that strain increases the probability of negative emotions such as
frustration and anger. Anger, in particular, stimulates corrective responses,
one of which is delinquency. The criminal response is linked only to some
types of strain, whereas stressful situations result in crimes when they have
certain characteristics and when stressed individuals possess certain
personal characteristics. Agnew (2003) discusses these characteristics as a
tendency to delinquency, depending on (1) certain temperamental variables;
(2) the individual’s previous learning process; (3) the adolescent’s beliefs;
and (4) the adolescent’s attributions regarding the causes of his or her
adversity. The third and fourth characteristics are, in terms of cognitive
criminology, forms of delinquent reasoning (Landsheer and Hart 2000).
Sykes and Matza (1957) discuss delinquent reasoning in terms of
neutralization techniques. According to Sykes and Matza’s neutralization
theory, both delinquents and non-delinquents subscribe to conventional
norms; the difference lies in their use of techniques to neutralize such norms
when taking part in morally offensive behaviour. As we will explain,
neutralization helps justify the actor’s behaviour and facilitates deviant
behaviour. Agnew explored the function of certain personality traits in the
relationship between strain and delinquency (Agnew et al. 2002), but so far
we have little knowledge of the links between criminal beliefs, criminal
excuses and strains. In this study we provide one of the first tests of Agnew’s
GST using a sample of young Italians. We test the hypothesis that the
techniques of neutralization influence the impact of strains on crime.
Basic concepts of General Strain Theory
GST affirms that a relationship between strain and crime exists. Strain refers
to ‘relationships in which others are not treating the individual as he or she
would like to be treated’ (Agnew 1992: 48). Agnew distinguishes between
objective and subjective strains. Objective strain refers to negative events or
conditions such as physical assault, lack of adequate shelter, or lack of pro-
tection. Subjective strain refers to events that are rejected by the individuals
experiencing them or who have experienced them. According to Agnew
(2001a), individuals often differ in their subjective evaluation of the same
objective strain, such as school failure, divorce or the death of a family mem-
ber. The subjective evaluation of an objective strain depends on a wide range
of factors: individual traits; personal and social resources such as
self-esteem, self-efficacy, purposes, beliefs and social support; and a range of
life circumstances. Agnew underlines the importance of beliefs because they
can stimulate criminal coping. Froggio and Agnew (2007) provide some
74 European Journal of Criminology 6(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial