A General Strain Theory of Racial Differences in Criminal Offending
| Author | Cesar J. Rebellon,Sherod Thaxton,Robert Agnew,Joanne M. Kaufman |
| Published date | 01 December 2008 |
| Date | 01 December 2008 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1375/acri.41.3.421 |
Differences in Criminal Offending
Joanne M. Kaufman
University at Albany, State University of New York, United States of America
Cesar J. Rebellon
University of New Hampshire, United States of America
Sherod Thaxton and Robert Agnew
Emory University, United States of America
Since 1992, General Strain Theory (GST) has earned strong empirical
support and has been applied to several key correlates of crime (e.g.,
age, sex, community), but researchers have yet to fully consider how GST
may aid in explaining racial differences in offending. While most explana-
tions focus on macro level and macro–micro control processes, we argue
that GST complements these explanations by highlighting the emotional
and motivational social psychological processes that underlie criminal
behaviour, thereby filling an important theoretical gap. In particular, we
argue that African–Americans are likely to experience more and qualita-
tively unique types of strain compared to Whites, and that these strains in
turn lead to higher levels of negative emotions among African–Americans.
Further, we argue that the unique social conditions in which many
African–Americans live may disproportionately lead them to cope with
strain and negative emotions through crime. We believe these theoretical
insights can guide future empirical research to create a fuller understand-
ing of racial differences in offending.
Since the publication of Agnew’s (1992) foundational paper on General Strain
Theory (GST), GST has garnered much empirical support (see Agnew, 2006 for
review). Scholars have further built on Agnew’s foundation by applying GST’s
insights to several key correlates of crime including age, sex, community, school and
the family (e.g., see Agnew, 2006, for review). Although a few recent empirical
pieces have highlighted how greater exposure to certain types of serious strains may
aid in explaining racial differences in criminal offending (Eitle & Turner, 2003;
Kaufman, 2005; Simons, Chen, Stewart, & Brody, 2003), researchers have yet to
fully extend GST to examine these differences.
While race is a social construct (Duster, 2003; Hawkins, 1996), scholars have
long recognised its impact in various areas including poverty (DeNavas-Walt,
Address for correspondence: Joanne M. Kaufman, Department of Sociology, University at
Albany-SUNY, 1400 Washington Avenue, Arts and Sciences 351, Albany, NY 12222, United
States of America. E-mail: jkaufman@albany.edu
THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY
421
VOLUME 41 NUMBER 3 2008 PP. 421–437
JOANNE M. KAUFMAN, CESAR J. REBELLON, SHEROD THAXTON AND ROBERT AGNEW
Proctor, & Smith, 2007), discrimination (Feagin, 1991), mental health (Massey,
2004; Willie, Kramer, & Brown, 1974), educational attainment (Epps, 1995), family
structure (Cherlin, 1992) and interpersonal victimisation (US Department of
Justice, 2006). Criminologists, however, have constructed relatively little theory to
explain racial differences in crime, and the major theories that address this topic are
at the macro level. Although some recent researchers have explored contextual and
multi-level models to empirically explain racial differences in offending (McNulty
& Bellair, 2003a, 2003b; Sampson, Morenoff, & Raudenbush, 2005), these models
have been driven by macro theorising with consideration of social capital and social
control oriented processes at the individual level. We believe that individual level
motivational processes contribute to a fuller explanation of the race–crime relation-
ship and require explicit theorising.
In this article, we first assess racial differences in offending in the United States
by reviewing the primary criminological data sources. Although our focus is on the
United States, we believe that these ideas have implications for group differences in
other contexts with racially diverse and indigenous populations, such as Australia
and New Zealand. Because existing literature concerning racial differences in
offending in the United States focuses almost exclusively on African–Americans,
we similarly limit our own focus. Second, we briefly discuss prior accounts of the
race–crime relationship and how GST complements these theories. Third, we argue
that African–Americans experience more and qualitatively different types of strain
than Whites, particularly those types of strain most conducive to crime, and that
African–Americans are more likely to cope with strain through crime.
Are There Racial Differences in Offending?
Three primary data sources in the US provide information on race and crime: arrest,
victimisation and self-report data. African–Americans have been disproportionately
represented among arrestees in the US criminal justice system since the mid-19th
century (Du Bois, 1899, 1904; Hawkins, 1995). Comprising close to 13% of the US
population in 2006, African–Americans accounted for 28% of all offence arrests
and 39.3% of violent crime arrests, including 50.9% of homicide arrests and 56.3%
of robbery arrests (US Department of Justice, 2007). Though discrimination may
account for a portion of African–American arrest statistics (see Walker, Spohn, &
Delone, 2000), criminologists generally argue that racial differences in arrests
cannot be explained solely by discrimination (e.g., Hawkins, Laub, & Lauritsen,
1998; Hindelang, 1978; Sampson & Lauritsen, 1997).
The most recent National Crime Victimization Survey data indicate that victims
perceived 25.3% of single offenders and 33.9% of offenders in multiple offender
victimisations to be African–American (US Department of Justice, 2006). Similar to
arrest statistics, the percentage varied depending upon the crime, with offenders
perceived as black in 47.7% of the robberies and 22% of the assaults (US Department
of Justice, 2006). Although victims of crime may be incorrect in the assessment of
race due to the stressful circumstances of the incident and the common stereotypes of
offenders as people of colour, victimisation data parallel arrest data with
African–Americans being disproportionately represented as offenders.
422
THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY
GENERAL STRAIN THEORY OF RACIAL DIFFERENCES
While early self-report surveys did not reveal a significant relationship between
race and crime (e.g., Elliott & Voss, 1974; Williams & Gold, 1972), more recent self-
report studies demonstrate that African–American and Hispanic youths are dispro-
portionately prone to engage in serious violence (Kelley, Huizinga, Thornberry, &
Loeber, 1997; Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). Given these three key data sources, crimi-
nologists should not ignore the evidence of racial differences in offending in the
United States, particularly for crimes of interpersonal violence (Hawkins et al.,
1998). There is also evidence of a similar relationship of disproportionate offending
and victimisation among Black and indigenous populations in many advanced
democracies such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia (Broadhurst, 1997; Doone,
2000; Tonry, 1997). This recognition does not negate the existence of discrimination
at all levels of the criminal justice system, but it does support the utility of exploring
theoretical explanations for racial disparities in offending.
How Have Prior Theories Explained Racial Differences?
Prior attempts to explain racial differences in offending have been primarily at the
macro level and typically involve variants of either social disorganisation theory or
subcultural violence theories. Social disorganisation research focuses on how struc-
tural barriers (e.g., poverty, residential mobility, single-parent households) impede
social networks and the social control of crime, suggesting that African–Americans
engage in more crime than Whites because they are more likely to live in neigh-
bourhoods with those characteristics (Sampson & Wilson, 1995). Recent
researchers have expanded on this theory to consider contextual and multi-level
processes whereby structural community measures and individual-level measures
(demographic, social capital, social control) affect levels of individual violence
(McNulty & Bellair, 2003a, 2003b; Sampson, Morenoff, & Raudenbush, 2005).
While social disorganisation theory and the recent multi-level modelling strategies
account for a significant portion of the racial differences in offending, they do not
offer a complete explanation.
According to subcultural violence theories (e.g., Anderson, 1999; Wolfgang &
Ferracuti, 1967), many urban Americans have embraced a system of values
conducive to violence under certain circumstances, particularly overt challenges to
individuals’ reputations. Thus, the race–crime relationship stems from
African–Americans’ disproportionate exposure to beliefs and values that condone
violence in the pursuit of status maintenance. The evidence concerning subcultural
theories is mixed (e.g., Cao, Adams, & Jensen, 1997; Felson, Liska, South, &
McNulty, 1994). Recent researchers have considered how the structure of commu-
nities (from social disorganisation theory) may impact neighbourhood cultural
processes that influence violence (see Anderson, 1999; Kubrin & Weitzer, 2003).
While we recognise the merits of the above theoretical research traditions, two
factors may render them incomplete explanations of racial differences in offending.
First, social disorganisation theory (and multi-level variants) does not provide
adequate discussion of those motivational processes that may increase crime.
Following Agnew (1999), we believe that...
To continue reading
Request your trial