Compare And Contrast Robert Merton's Strain Theory

First Compare And Contrast Robert Mertons Strain Theory With Robert

First, Compare and Contrast Robert Merton's Strain Theory with Robert Agnew's Strain Theory. In conducting this compare and contrast, you will talk about each theory in detail and then compare their similarities and differences. Second, Discuss different ways individuals react to strain. EX: cry, sleep, go for a walk. Third, Discuss the relationship between strain and delinquency. Use examples. Fourth, Can you use one or both of theories to explain the crime of robbery and why? 6 Pages

Paper For Above instruction

First Compare And Contrast Robert Mertons Strain Theory With Robert

The sociological understanding of crime and criminal behavior has been significantly shaped by strain theories, particularly those proposed by Robert Merton and Robert Agnew. Both theorists conceptualize the relationship between society's structures and individual deviance, yet their theories differ in scope, underlying assumptions, and implications. This paper provides a comprehensive comparison and contrast of Merton’s Strain Theory and Agnew’s Strain Theory, explores individual reactions to strain, discusses the link between strain and delinquency, and examines how these theories can explain crimes such as robbery.

Robert Merton’s Strain Theory

Robert Merton’s Strain Theory, formulated in the 1930s, is rooted in Durkheim’s sociology of anomie—a state of normlessness caused by a disjunction between societal goals and the means available to achieve them. Merton argues that American society emphasizes the cultural goal of monetary success and material wealth, but not everyone has equal access to legitimate means such as education and employment. This discrepancy creates strain or pressure, which may lead individuals to engage in deviant or criminal behaviors as alternative means of achieving societal goals.

Merton’s typology classifies individuals based on their adaptations to strain: conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion. Notably, ‘innovation’ refers to those who accept societal goals but resort to criminal means, such as theft or fraud, to attain success. Merton’s theory emphasizes structural inequality as a primary source of criminality, particularly focusing on economic success and the limited opportunities available to lower socio-economic groups.

Robert Agnew’s Strain Theory

Building upon Merton’s work, Robert Agnew’s Strain Theory, developed in the 1990s, broadens the concept of strain to include various sources of negative feel-ings and experiences that can lead to criminal behavior. Unlike Merton, who focused primarily on economic goals and the discrepancy between means and ends, Agnew identifies multiple strains such as:

• failure to achieve positively valued goals
• disjunction of expectations and achievements
• removal of positively valued stimuli (e.g., loss of a loved one, rejection)
• presentation of negatively valued stimuli (e.g., abuse, neglect)

Agnew emphasizes that individuals’ emotional responses to strain—such as anger, frustration, or resentment—are critical in understanding criminal reactions. His theory posits that strain becomes particularly criminogenic when individuals lack coping mechanisms, social support, or opportunities to deal constructively with their negative experiences.

Comparison of Merton and Agnew’s Strain Theories

Both theories underscore the significance of societal pressures in precipitating criminal behavior, but they differ substantially in their scope and focus. Merton’s theory is structural and macro-level, highlighting societal goals and access to means as sources of strain. Its focus is mainly on economic success and the criminal adaptation (innovation) among marginalized groups.

In contrast, Agnew’s theory is more comprehensive and micro-level, emphasizing emotional responses and individual differences. His inclusion of various sources of strain—beyond economic issues—reflects a broader understanding of the diverse experiences that lead to criminal conduct. Moreover, Agnew places greater emphasis on personal emotional reactions, such as anger and frustration, as direct catalysts for crime.

While Merton explains crime through structural adaptations to societal pressures, Agnew’s theory accounts for a wider array of personal and interpersonal strains, making it more adaptable to explaining different forms of deviance, including violent crimes, drug offenses, and property crimes.

Individuals’ Reactions to Strain

Individuals respond to strain in various ways depending on their psychological makeup, social support networks, and coping skills. For example, some people may respond with emotional expressions such as crying or anger, which can sometimes escalate into aggressive behavior. Others might adopt passive or avoidant behaviors like sleeping or withdrawing from social interactions. In some cases, individuals seek out constructive solutions—talking to friends, engaging in physical activity, or seeking therapy. These reactions illustrate the heterogeneity of responses to strain and highlight the importance of social context and personal resilience.

For instance, a student who fails an important exam may respond with feelings of despair, withdraw from peers, or even act out aggressively toward others. Conversely, some individuals may channel their frustration into productive activities, such as studying harder or seeking academic support. The way individuals respond influences whether they adapt positively or progress toward deviant or criminal behaviors.

The Relationship Between Strain and Delinquency

Research consistently supports a link between strain and delinquency. Strain creates negative emotions like frustration, anger, and hopelessness, which can motivate individuals to engage in delinquent acts as a way to cope or find relief. For example, youth who experience peer rejection, family conflict, or academic failure are more likely to participate in delinquent behaviors such as vandalism, theft, or assault.

Agnew’s work particularly emphasizes that strain—when coupled with a lack of social support and effective coping strategies—can lead to criminal acts as an emotional release or a means to regain a sense of control. Empirical studies show that adolescents experiencing multiple types of strain are more prone to delinquent acts, especially when they perceive fewer legitimate pathways for success (Agnew, 2001; Broidy & Agnew, 1997). These findings demonstrate that delinquency is not merely a result of individual pathology but a response to social pressures and emotional distress.

Applying Theories to the Crime of Robbery

Both Merton’s and Agnew’s strain theories provide valuable insights into the crime of robbery. Robbery, which involves taking property through force or threat, often occurs in contexts where individuals face economic hardship and limited legitimate opportunities. According to Merton’s theory, individuals who accept society’s goal of material success but cannot achieve it legally may turn to innovation—committing robbery as an illegitimate means to attain wealth (Merton, 1938). For example, a person unemployed or living in impoverished conditions might see robbery as the quickest route to acquiring possessions.

Agnew’s theory complements this perspective by suggesting that emotional responses such as frustration, anger, or resentment—arising from personal or social strains—can push individuals toward violent crimes like robbery. For instance, a person rejected by society or enduring family violence may react with rage, leading to acts of force and theft. The perception of limited legitimate avenues, combined with intense emotional strain, heightens the likelihood of resorting to crime as a form of coping or response to adversity.

In conclusion, both theories underscore the significance of structural and emotional factors in understanding robberies. Policymakers and law enforcement agencies can use these insights to develop interventions aimed at reducing economic hardship, providing social support, and enhancing coping mechanisms, thereby potentially decreasing the incidence of robbery and related crimes.

Conclusion

In sum, Robert Merton’s and Robert Agnew’s strain theories offer complementary frameworks for understanding the social origins of criminal behavior. Merton’s focus on societal goals and available means highlights structural inequalities that foster deviance, while Agnew’s broader approach incorporates personal emotional responses and diverse sources of strain. Understanding individual reactions to strain—as well as its connection to delinquency—enables a more nuanced view of criminality, including offenses like robbery. Future research and policy should consider these multidimensional approaches to effectively address the root causes of crime.

References

• Agnew, R. (2001). Building on General Strain Theory: Specifying the Types of strain most likely to lead to criminal coping. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(4), 319–361.
• Broidy, L., & Agnew, R. (1997). Family invalidation and adolescent externalizing behavior: The moderating effect of gender. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34(2), 139–165.
• Merton, R. K. (1938). Social Structure and Anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672–682.
• Agnew, R. (2006). Pressured into Crime: An overview of General Strain Theory. Oxford University Press.
• Messner, S. F., & Rosenfeld, R. (2012). Crime and the American Dream. Cengage Learning.
• Elster, J. (1989). Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge University Press.
• Crutchfield, R. D. (2014). Strain and Crime: Effects of Perceived Relative Deprivation. Crime & Delinquency, 60(1), 42–63.
• Balkind, R. (2017). Sociology: A Brief Introduction. Pearson Education.
• Farrall, S., & Calverley, A. (2005). Understanding Desistance From Crime. Willan Publishing.
• Matsueda, R. L. (1997). Reflected Appraisal, Parental Labeling, and Delinquency: An experimental test of Howard Becker’s labelling theory. American Journal of Sociology, 102(3), 837–876.