مواجهه با فشار با خشم: بررسی سازگاری انحرافی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|33248||1998||7 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 26, Issue 3, May–June 1998, Pages 195–211
Recent developments in strain theory have moved toward a broad conceptualization of strain. In a series of papers, Agnew 1992has developed General Strain Theory (GST), which attempts to address past criticisms of more traditional theories of strain. There have, however, been few empirical tests of GST, and the critical role of anger has not been widely examined. In the present analysis, a partial empirical test of GST is presented that examines the mediating effects of anger as well as the possible instrumental, escapist, and violent adaptations to strain. The results reveal partial support for GST, but only for models predicting intentions to fight. In addition, the mediating effects of anger were not observed in models predicting intentions to drive drunk, shoplift, and fight. Implications of the results and future directions for GST are discussed.
Contemporary theoretical developments in criminology have centered on a number of themes. One such theme has been the redevelopment and reconceptualization of past theoretical approaches in criminology. Recent developments in labeling theory (Link et al. 1989; Matsueda 1992), ecological theory (Bursik 1988; Sampson and Groves 1989), control theory (Cullen 1994; Sampson and Laub 1993), and Marxist theory (Colvin and Pauly 1983) bear witness to major reevaluations of past theories of crime and delinquency. A second major theme in contemporary theoretical criminology recognizes the movement toward general theories of criminal behavior. Despite evidence of diversity in the causes and characteristics of offending (Huizinga, Esbensen, and Wylie Weiher 1991; Moffitt 1993; Patterson and Yoerger 1993), a number of significant theoretical contributions in criminology have attempted to move the field toward general theories (Agnew 1992; Braithwaite 1989; Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990). Although the movement toward more general and parsimonious explanations of crime has been a matter of considerable debate (Hood and Sparks 1970; Walker 1977; Lynch and Groves 1995), theories designed to explain specific aspects or types of offending behavior (i.e., crime typologies) may, at present, function as building blocks toward a more comprehensive general understanding of criminal behavior in the future (Clinard and Quinney 1967; Tittle 1985). The development of a general theory of strain (Agnew 1992), therefore, is consistent with some of the more recent and significant developments in theoretical criminology. In a number of articles, Agnew 1985Agnew 1989Agnew 1992refined and reformulated traditional presentations of strain theory (Merton 1938) toward the development of general strain theory (GST). In addition, Agnew and White 1992offered an initial empirical test of GST that suggested the need to give attention to the theory and also to continue to refine it over time through further empirical testing. In the current analysis, a partial test of Agnew 1992GST that uses data collected from a sample of college-aged youths is presented. An examination of the relationship between various types of strain and intentions to deviate is conducted using a questionnaire that captures important elements of Agnew’s theory. Moreover, an investigation of the impact of different types of strain on anger, a crucial intervening mechanism between exposure to varying types of strain and possible deviant adaptations, is presented. Lastly, the results of models including anger and varying dimensions of strain predicting intentions to engage in three different types of deviant behavior are presented.