AGNEW 2016 Criminology

THE 2015 SUTHERLAND ADDRESS
A THEORY OF CRIME RESISTANCE AND

SUSCEPTIBILITY
ROBERT AGNEW
Department of Sociology, Emory University
KEYWORDS: resistance, susceptibility, resilience, causes, traits, crime theory
The causes of crime research has up to this point focused on those events and
conditions that push or pressure individuals into crime (strains), that pull or attract
individuals to crime (social learning for crime), and that restrain individuals from re-
sponding to pressures and attractions with crime (controls). Work in several areas,
however, has suggested that the response to the pressures for and attractions to crime is
not simply a function of controls. It is also a function of the individuals resistance or
susceptibility to the events and conditions described by strain and social learning theo-
ries. Those high in resistance are less likely to experience these criminogenic events and
conditions as pressures for or attractions to crime, whereas those high in susceptibility
are more likely. Resistance and susceptibility are a function of factors that influence
the perception and interpretation of criminogenic events and conditions, the emotional
reaction to them, and the behavioral inclinations prompted by them. These factors in-
clude negativity, pleasure and sensation seeking, conventional efficacy and perceived
social support, and general sensitivity to the environment. With certain notable excep-
tions, these factors have been neglected in mainstream crime research, but they have
the potential to improve the explanation and prediction of crime substantially.
Three major theoretical perspectives dominate criminology (Agnew, 2005; Hirschi,

1969; Kornhauser, 1978). 1) Strain theories focus on those strains or stressors that push
or pressure individuals into crime. Strains such as economic problems and discrimination
contribute to a range of negative emotions, creating pressure for corrective actionwith
crime being one method of coping (Agnew, 2006). 2) Social learning theories focus on
those factors that pull or attract individuals to crime. Individuals view crime as an at-
tractive option because their prior crime has been reinforced, they have been exposed
to models whose crime has been reinforced, and they have been taught beliefs favorable
to crime (Akers, 2009). And 3) control theories focus on those factors that restrain indi-
viduals from responding to pressures and attractions with crime. These restraints include
formal and informal sanctions, bonds to conventional others, investments in conventional
institutions, the belief that crime is wrong, and self-control (Agnew and Brezina, 2015;
Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990; Hirschi, 1969).
Direct correspondence to Robert Agnew, Department of Sociology, Emory University, 1555

Dickey Drive, Tarbutton Hall, Atlanta, GA 30322 (e-mail: bagnew@emory.edu).

C 2016 American Society of Criminology doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12104
CRIMINOLOGY Volume 54 Number 2 181211 2016 181
182 AGNEW
Figure 1. Master Paradigm for the Causes of Crime Research (Direct and
Interactive Effects Shown)
Strains
(pressures
for crime )
Controls Crime
(restraints
against crime)
Social Learning
for Crime
(attractions to
crime)
There are, to be sure, many crime theories besides strain, social learning, and control
theories (hereafter referred to as the big three). But most other theories are extensions
of the big three. Certain extensions focus on particular types of strain, social learning, or
control. Deterrence theory, for example, focuses on that type of control involving for-
mal sanctions by the criminal justice system. Other extensions focus on particular levels
of analysis. Social disorganization theory, for example, focuses on controls at the commu-
nity level. Still other extensions apply the big three to particular groups or dependent vari-
ables. Life-course theories, for example, use the big three to explain offending in different
age groups and patterns of offending over the life course. Many extensions describe how
exogenous variables, including biological factors, sociodemographic variables, and larger
social and cultural forces, impact the big three. Certain feminist theories, for example,
describe the impact of gender on strains such as discrimination and physical and sexual
abuse. And several extensions attempt to integrate the big three (Agnew, 2005; Elliott,
Huizinga, and Ageton, 1985).
The dominance of the big three has been readily apparent in the research on the causes
of crime. Quantitative studies have routinely included control variables, such as parental
supervision, bonds to parents and school, beliefs regarding crime, and self-control
(Agnew and Brezina, 2015; Kurbin, Stucky, and Krohn, 2009). Such studies also have reg-
ularly included social learning variables, particularly association with delinquent peers
and beliefs favorable to crime (Pratt et al., 2009). And these studies often have in-
cluded strain variables, such as harsh parental discipline and measures of economic strain
(Agnew, 2006). Likewise, the qualitative research has drawn heavily on the big three.
Several major qualitative studies, for example, have been explicitly or implicitly based
on strain theory (e.g., Bourgois, 2003; MacLeod, 2009). Both the quantitative and the
qualitative research have found that the pressures, attractions, and restraints described
by the big three theories play a major role in the explanation of crime. In fact, a good
case can be made that the big three constitute the master paradigm guiding the causes of
crime research. As illustrated in figure 1, crime is most likely when the pressures for and
attractions to crime are high, and when the restraints against crime are low.
But despite the dominance of the big three, quantitative studies have left most of
the variation in crime unexplained (Rutter, 2006; Weisburd and Piquero, 2008). Many
A THEORY OF CRIME RESISTANCE AND SUSCEPTIBILITY 183
individuals subject to the pressures for and attractions to crime do not respond with crime
even if they are low in control. Furthermore, some individuals respond to seemingly mi-
nor pressures and attractions with crime. Work in several areas has suggested that this
is the case because the response of individuals to criminal pressures and attractions is
not simply a function of their level of control. This is a core argument of constructionist
perspectives in criminology, such as symbolic interactionism, which state that individuals
differ in how they interpret and therefore respond to the events and conditions described
by strain and learning theories (Agnew, 2011). Differences in interpretation are a function
of such things as the beliefs and values that individuals hold, the meaning negotiations
they engage in with others, and the exercise of agency. The resilience research has stated
that factors such as temperament and self-esteem influence the response to pressures and
attractions (American Psychological Association, 2008; Losel and Bender, 2003; Reckless,
1961; Rutter, 2006). Cullen (1994) emphasized the importance of social support, building
a major theory around this concept. The larger stress and coping literature also has fo-
cused on social support, as well as on traits such as mastery, flexibility, optimism, and
hardiness (Carver and Connor-Smith, 2010; Wheaton, 2010; Williams et al., 2011). The
psychological research has described the key role that personality traits play in the reac-
tion to events and conditions, including traits such as negative emotionality, neuroticism,
and hostile attribution of intent (Caspi et al., 1994; De Castro et al., 2002; Jones, Miller,
and Lynam, 2011). And the biological research has pointed to genetic and other factors
that influence the sensitivity and response to criminal pressures and attractions (Beaver,
Barnes, and Boutwell, 2015; Simons et al., 2011).
Strain and social learning theorists have drawn on this work to some extent. Most
notably, general strain theory (GST) states that the response to strains is influenced by
factors such as coping skills and resources, social supports, and selected personality traits
(Agnew, 2006). But the many factors listed previously are usually neglected in the main-
stream crime research. For example, it is rare for quantitative researchers to consider
temperament, personality traits such as neuroticism and optimism, coping skills and re-
sources, social supports, or sensitivity to environmental factors. Many of these factors are
likely neglected because of the lingering sociological bias of criminology. In fact, biolog-
ical and psychological factors were routinely discounted by criminologists until recently
(Beaver, Barnes, and Boutwell, 2015; Caspi et al., 1994). Relatedly, these factors are
likely neglected because of the unfamiliarity of many criminologists with the biological
and psychological literatures. Also, these literatures have pointed to a long list of poten-
tially relevant factors, far too many for criminologists to incorporate readily into their
research.
This article argues that these factors and the perspectives from which they derive sug-
gest a fourth major theoretical perspective in criminology, one dealing with the resistance
and susceptibility to the pressures for and attractions to crime. Resistance and susceptibil-
ity are different than restraint, which is at the heart of control theories. Control theories
assume that individuals are motivated to engage in crime by events and conditions that
create pressure for or an attraction to crime. Individuals are restrained from acting on this
motivation by external and internal controls. Those high in resistance experience the same
events and conditions that motivate crime in others, but they do not experience them as
pressures for or attractions to crime. So when resistance is high, individuals are not moti-
vated to engage in crime. Restraint from crime is therefore unnecessary. Conversely, when
susceptibility is high, individuals are more likely than others to experience the events and
184 AGNEW
conditions described by strain and social learning theories as pressures for or attractions
to crime. They are, in a sense, extra- or super-motivated to engage in crime when exposed
to such events and conditions.
Individuals level of resistance and susceptibility depends on a set of factors that
influence their perception and interpretation of events and conditions, their emotional
response to them, and the behavioral inclinations prompted by them. The theory of crime
resistance and susceptibility (TCRS) presented in this article lists the key factors in this
area by drawing on prior research and a consideration of the nature of the pressures
for and attractions to crime. Building on strain theory, the focus is on factors that
influence the likelihood that strains will be perceived or imagined; viewed as very
bad, unjust, and uncontrollable through legal channels; elicit negative emotions such
as anger; and create an inclination to respond in an aggressive or rebellious manner.
Building on social learning theory, the focus is on factors that influence the likelihood
that individuals perceive or imagine the crime and criminal beliefs of their associates, are
inclined to model this crime and adopt the beliefs, and experience crime and the common
consequences of crime as pleasurable.
Four factors are said to affect the level of resistance and susceptibility to criminogenic
events and conditions. The first is negativity or the extent to which individuals are in-
clined to view certain events and conditions as bad and unjust, become upset in response
to them, and respond in an aggressive or rebellious manner. The second is pleasure and
sensation seeking or the extent to which individuals place a strong absolute and relative
emphasis on money and material goods, prestige, power and autonomy, thrills and ex-
citement, and physical pleasure but a low emphasis on hard work and sacrifice. The third
is conventional efficacy and perceived social support or the extent to which individuals
believe that they can legally cope with strains and take advantage of opportunities for
success, and that others will support them in these efforts. The fourth is general sensitivity
to the environment or the extent to which individuals are responsive to a range of envi-
ronmental influences, both good and bad. These four factors encompass or overlap with a
range of particular variables, including traits, beliefs, values, and identities. And these fac-
tors are directly affected by a range of biological factors and social experiences, including
social learning, exposure to strain, received social support, and situational factors.
This article begins with a brief overview of the big three theories. It then draws on
strain and social learning theories to describe the nature of resistance and susceptibility.
The article next describes the four factors that influence the resistance and susceptibility
to criminogenic events and conditions. This is followed by a discussion of the research im-
plications of the TCRS. The TCRS has the potential to improve the explanation of crime
dramatically. It helps better explain why many individuals do not respond to the events
and conditions described by strain and social learning theories with crime, addressing the
problem of overdeterminism in criminology (Matza, 1964). And it helps explain why some
individuals respond to seemingly minor strains and temptations with crime.
OVERVIEW OF THE BIG THREE THEORIES

STRAIN THEORIES
Strain and social learning theories focus on those factors that motivate individuals to
engage in crime, with strain theories stating that individuals are pressured into crime by
the strains or stressors they experience. GST is the leading version of strain theory, and
it defines strains as events and conditions that are disliked by individuals (Agnew, 2006).
These events and conditions fall into three groups: the inability to achieve valued goals,
the loss of positively valued stimuli, and the presentation of negative stimuli. These strains
result in negative emotions, such as anger and frustration. These emotions create pressure
for corrective action; individuals feel bad and want to do something about it. Crime is one
possible response. Crime may allow individuals to reduce or escape from strains (e.g.,
theft to obtain money or running away to escape abusive parents), obtain revenge against
the source of their strain or related targets, and alleviate negative emotions (through illicit
drug use). Anger is especially conducive to crime because it reduces concern for the con-
sequences of ones actions; reduces the ability and inclination to engage in legal coping,
such as negotiation; energizes the individual for action; and creates a desire for revenge.
GST states that certain events and conditions are more likely than others to create
pressure for crime or function as criminogenic strains (Agnew, 2001, 2006). This in-
cludes events and conditions that are viewed as very bad. Such strains tend to be severe
(e.g., a serious assault versus a minor insult), frequent, of long duration, expected to con-
tinue into the future, and high in centrality (threaten core goals, needs, values, and/or
identities). Criminogenic strains are also seen as unjust, with individuals believing that
they involve the voluntary and intentional violation of relevant justice norms. Crimino-
genic strains are associated with low social control (e.g., chronic unemployment as op-
posed to the long working hours of many professional jobs). And criminogenic strains
create some incentive for criminal coping. For example, such strains are readily resolved
through crime (e.g., a strain involving an immediate need for money as opposed to the
death of a family member). Those events and conditions most likely to create pressure
for crime include parental rejection and neglect; harsh and erratic discipline; verbal and
physical abuse; negative secondary school experiences; bad jobs and chronic unemploy-
ment; criminal victimization; discrimination; economic problems; homelessness; and the
failure to achieve select goals, such as masculine status, thrills and excitement, autonomy,
and monetary goals.
Strain theorists, however, recognize that most individuals do not respond to these
strains with crime (Agnew, 2006, 2013). GST states that a criminal response is more likely
among those with little social support and poor coping skills and resources (e.g., poor so-
cial and problem-solving skills and limited financial resources). Criminal coping is more
likely among those low in social and self-controls because their costs of criminal coping
are lower. And criminal coping is more likely among those disposed to crime. This in-
cludes people who associate with criminal others, hold beliefs favorable to crime, and are
high in negative emotionality. The research on such conditioning effects has produced
mixed results, however. Agnew (2013) argued that this is because of the difficultly of de-
tecting conditioning effects in survey research and the fact that individuals must possess
several of these conditioning factors before criminal coping is likely.
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORIES

Social learning theories state that individuals are attracted to crime because they asso-
ciate with others who differentially reinforce their crime, model crime, and teach beliefs
favorable to crime (Akers, 2009). These beliefs excuse, justify, or approve of crime. Also,
certain situations function as discriminative stimuli, suggesting that crime is likely to be re-
inforced. This includes situations where attractive targets are present, capable guardians
186 AGNEW
are absent, and/or adolescents are engaged in unstructured, unsupervised activities with
peers (Felson and Boba, 2010; Hughes and Short, 2014; Osgood et al., 1996). As a result
of their exposure to these events and conditions, individuals come to believe that crime is
an attractive option in certain circumstances. That is, crime is likely to result in pleasur-
able consequences such as social approval and status, money, material objects, thrills and
excitement, a sense of power or control, and the feelings that result from drug use (e.g.,
Akers, 2009; Katz, 1988; Matsueda, Kreager, and Huizinga, 2006).
Social learning researchers have noted that some individuals are more resistant or sus-
ceptible than others to these events and conditions. The individuals attraction to the con-
sequences of crime depends on his or her level of satiation or deprivation. Individuals with
a desperate need for money, for example, will find the monetary rewards of crime more
attractive than others. Also, some individuals have traits that make certain of the conse-
quences of crime more attractive to them. Those high in sensation seeking, for example,
are more attracted to the thrills and excitement associated with crime (e.g., Brezina and
Piquero, 2003; Wood et al., 1995). Furthermore, individuals differ in their susceptibility
to the influence of peers, including delinquent peers (which will be discussed). Work in
these areas, however, has not been a major focus of the social learning research.
CONTROL THEORIES
The major controls or restraints against crime include direct controls or the efforts of
others to set rules, monitor behavior, and sanction rule violations (Agnew and Brezina,
2015; Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990; Hirschi, 1969). They include the individuals stake
in conformity or those things that might be jeopardized through crime, particularly bonds
to conventional others and investments in conventional society. They include the learned
belief that crime is wrong. They include self-control or the ability and motivation to exer-
cise self-restraint when tempted or pressured to engage in crime. And they include social
concern, a broad concept that involves care about the welfare of others; the desire for
close ties to others; and certain moral intuitions, including not causing harm to innocent
others and treating others in an equitable manner (Agnew, 2014). As Agnew (2014: 14)
stated, social concern acts as a restraint, reducing the likelihood that individuals will
respond to temptations and provocations with crime.
Certain control theorists believe that the pressures for and attractions to crime are gen-
erally high for the large majority of people; thus, crime is primarily a function of variation
in controls (Hirschi, 1969; Kornhauser, 1978). But data suggest that there is substantial
variation in the pressures for and attractions to crime and that such variation also has
a major impact on crime (Agnew, 2005; Greenberg, 2015). Crime, then, is a function of
strains, social learning, and controls, as indicated in the master paradigm in figure 1. This
article further argues that crime is also a function of variation in the resistance and sus-
ceptibility to the events and conditions described by strain and social learning theories,
with the theory of crime resistance and susceptibility (TCRS) described next.
NATURE OF CRIME RESISTANCE AND SUSCEPTIBILITY

Strain and social learning theories describe a range of events and conditions that cre-
ate pressure for or an attraction to crime (hereafter referred to as criminogenic events
and conditions). These include the strains listed earlier, such as criminal victimization,
discrimination, and economic problems. And they include association with criminal peers;
exposure to criminal models; instruction in beliefs favorable to crime; and the conse-
quences of crime, including consequences such as money, status, and thrills and excite-
ment. The TCRS does not deny that these events and conditions generally increase the
likelihood of crime, but it instead states that individuals differ in their reaction to given
criminogenic events and conditions.
Individuals differ in how they perceive and interpret criminogenic events and con-
ditions, their emotional reaction to them, and the behavioral inclinations prompted by
them. In certain cases, these differences are such that given events and conditions are less
likely to function as pressures for or attractions to crime (resistance to crime is high). In
other cases, the differences are such that given events and conditions are more likely to
function as pressures for or attractions to crime (susceptibility to crime is high). Resis-
tance and susceptibility represent opposing poles on the same continuum. The position
of individuals on this continuum plays a key role in determining whether they respond to
criminogenic events and conditions with crime, as does their level of control.
REACTION TO CRIMINOGENIC STRAINS

The events and conditions described by strain theory create pressure for crime to the
extent that individuals are aware of or imagine them; believe that they are very bad, un-
just, and uncontrollable through legal channels but controllable through crime; experi-
ence strong negative emotional reactions to them, particularly anger; and feel an incli-
nation to respond to them in an aggressive or rebellious manner (Agnew, 2001, 2006,
2013; also see the discussion in Polizzi, 2011). These reactions are influenced by the ob-
jective characteristics of strains, such as their duration and severity (e.g., a single verbal
insult versus an ongoing series of physical assaults). And Agnew (2001) described the key
objective characteristics of strains and strategies for their measurement. But a core argu-
ment of the TCRS is that these reactions are also influenced by an additional set of factors
beyond the objective characteristics of strains. As such, individuals differ in their reaction
to the same objective strains, such that a given strain is more likely to create pressure for
crime in susceptible individuals and less likely in resistant individuals.1
Susceptible individuals are more likely to be aware of the criminogenic strains to which
they are subject. For example, they are more sensitive to discrimination and so more
likely to notice the discriminatory treatment they experience (King, 2005; Unnever and
Gabbidon, 2011). Susceptible individuals may also imagine that they are experiencing
criminogenic strains. Certain mentally ill individuals, for example, imagine that others
are trying to harm them (Link et al., 1999). The members of certain far-right groups in
the United States imagine that they are the victims of severe oppression by the Zionist
Occupation Government (Blazak, 2001). Even though such strains are imagined, they
nevertheless have real effects on crime. The extent to which perceptions of the same event
or condition may vary is revealed by studies that ask different respondents to describe the
same event or condition, as well as by studies that ask the same respondent to describe the
same event or condition on different occasions. The correlations between the reports of
1. A similar argument has been made in the larger stress literature, which has emphasized the role
that cognitive appraisals and emotional reactions play in the response to given stressors, with ap-
praisals and emotions being influenced by a range of individual and social factors beyond the stres-
sors (e.g., King, 2005; McLeod, 2012; Smith and Kirby, 2011; Williams et al., 2011).)
188 AGNEW
different respondents or between the reports of the same respondents on different occa-
sions are often only modest in size (Agnew, 2011: 1713). For example, parents and chil-
dren sometimes give different descriptions of the same family practices (Krohn et al.,
1992). Furthermore, respondent reports of an event or condition are often only weakly to
moderately correlated with gold standard measures of that event or condition, that is,
measures found to be highly accurate by those in the scientific community (Agnew, 2011:
1723).
Once perceived, susceptible individuals are more likely to view given strains as very
bad, unjust, and uncontrollable through legal channels. Research has indicated that in-
dividuals often differ greatly in their evaluation of a given strain, such as low grades or
poverty (e.g., Agnew, 2016; Baron, Forde, and Kennedy, 2001; Froggio and Agnew, 2007).
This has been a major theme in several literatures, including those dealing with stress,
social comparison, temperament and personality traits, optimism, and self-enhancement
(e.g., Agnew, 2001; Agnew and Jones, 1988; Suls, Martin, and Wheeler, 2002). Research
also has indicated that some individuals are more likely than others to view given events
as unjust. This includes the research on hostile attribution of intent, justice sensitiv-
ity, and belief in a just world (e.g., Bondu and Elsner, 2015; De Castro et al., 2002;
Faccenda and Pantaleon, 2011; Schmitt et al., 2010). Furthermore, some individuals are
more likely than others to believe that the strains they experience are uncontrollable
through legal channels, as indicated by the research on self-efficacy, mastery, and locus
of control (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Gecas, 1989; Mirowsky and Ross, 1989). Individuals also
differ in the belief that the strains they experience are controllable through crime, as in-
dicated by the research on criminal self-efficacy (Brezina and Topalli, 2012). It should be
noted that beliefs in these areas tend to reinforce one another. For example, uncontrol-
lable events are more likely to be seen as bad and vice versa (Smith and Kirby, 2011).
Susceptible individuals also tend to have strong negative emotional reactions to given
criminogenic strains. This tendency has been a central theme in several literatures. It is at
the heart of the stress-diathesis model, which states that some individuals are more vulner-
able to the negative effects of stressors than others (Stogner, 2015; Vaske and Boisvert,
2015). Likewise, it is at the core of several related traits, including difficult tempera-
ment, negative emotionality, and neuroticism (Agnew et al., 2002; Jones, Miller, and
Lynam, 2011; Vollrath, 2001). The strain research in criminology and the larger stress re-
search also have confirmed that some individuals are more likely than others to have neg-
ative emotional reactions to stressors (Agnew, 2006; Bernard, 1990; Schulz, 2015; Smith
and Kirby, 2011). These negative emotional reactions may be driven by the view that the
stressors are very bad, unjust, and uncontrollable (Agnew, 2001; Ganem, 2010; Smith and
Kirby, 2011). But the emotional reaction to stressors is often immediate and involves lit-
tle or no conscious deliberation (Benson and Sams, 2013; Finan, Zautra, and Wershba,
2011; Schulz, 2015; Van Gelder, 2013). In fact, the emotional reaction frequently drives
cognitions. Angry individuals, for example, are more likely to view certain events and
conditions as bad and unjust (Brezina, 2010).
Finally, susceptible individuals are more inclined to respond to strains in an aggressive
or rebellious (nonconforming) manner. Such responses include violence, theft, property
damage, illicit drug use, and illegal escape attempts such as running away and truancy. The
research on general strain theory and the larger research on stress and coping have indi-
cated that some individuals are more inclined than others to cope in an aggressive and re-
bellious manner (e.g., Baron, Forde, and Kennedy, 2001; Skinner et al., 2003; Skinner and
Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007). This inclination for aggressive and rebellious coping has also
been emphasized in the temperament and personality literatures (DeLisi and Vaughn,
2014; Jones, Miller, and Lyman, 2011). Behavioral inclinations are partly a function of the
earlier cited emotional reactions and cognitions. An aggressive or rebellious inclination
is more likely among those who experience strong negative emotional reactions to strains
and view strains as very bad, unjust, and uncontrollable (Brezina, 2010; Ganem, 2010).
But such inclinations are also a function of learned habits and personality traits with a
strong biological basis, such that the inclination to respond in an aggressive or rebellious
manner may sometimes be immediate and involve little conscious deliberation (Botchko-
var, Tittle, and Antonaccio, 2013; Van Gelder, 2013; Van Gelder and De Vries, 2012).
In sum, individuals differ a good deal in their reactions to the events and conditions de-
scribed by strain theory, including their perceptions, interpretations, emotional reactions,
and behavioral inclinations. Susceptible individuals are more likely than resistant indi-
viduals to perceive or imagine strains; view them as very bad, unjust, and uncontrollable
through legal channels; experience negative emotional reactions to them; and be inclined
to respond to them in an aggressive or rebellious manner. As suggested earlier, these re-
actions tend to mutually reinforce one another. They also have common causes (which
will be discussed shortly). As such, they frequently occur together. Because of these dif-
ferences in reaction, given strains are more likely to function as pressures for crime for
some individuals than for others.
REACTION TO THE EVENTS AND CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BY SOCIAL

LEARNING THEORY
The events and conditions described by social learning theory create an attraction to
crime to the extent that individuals are aware of or imagine them, are inclined to model
the criminal behavior and adopt the criminal beliefs of others, and find crime and the
common consequences of crime pleasurable. These reactions are influenced by the objec-
tive characteristics of events and conditions. For example, individuals are more inclined
to model crime when they are frequently exposed to crime committed by intimate others
over a long period versus being exposed to a single crime committed by a stranger. And
individuals are more likely to find crime pleasurable if it results in a large versus small
monetary payoff. But the TCRS states that these reactions are also influenced by a set
of factors beyond the objective characteristics of events and conditions, such that given
events and conditions are more likely to create an attraction to crime in some individuals
than in others.
Susceptible individuals are more likely to be aware of or exaggerate the delinquency
and delinquent beliefs of their associates. Researchers have measured individuals percep-
tion of their friends delinquency and the delinquency reported by the friends themselves.
Some individuals overestimate their friends delinquency, whereas others underestimate
it (Boman and Ward, 2014; Young et al., 2011). Furthermore, perceived friends delin-
quency is more strongly related to the individuals delinquency than is actual friends
delinquency, although there is some question about whether perceived friends delin-
quency has a causal effect on the individuals delinquency (Akers, 2009; Young et al.,
2014, 2015). In addition, researchers have found that some individuals exaggerate the de-
viance and deviant beliefs of peers in general, with these exaggerations contributing to
individual deviance (e.g., Lee et al., 2010).
190 AGNEW
Susceptible individuals are also more inclined to model the criminal behavior of oth-
ers and to adopt their criminal beliefs. Researchers have estimated the susceptibility to
peer influence by asking individuals whether they would conform to the behavior of their
peers, with studies focusing on criminal behavior and neutral behavior (e.g., Meldrum,
Miller, and Flexon, 2012; Miller, 2010; Monahan, Steinberg, and Cauffman, 2009). Some
are more inclined to conform than others, with this inclination to conformespecially to
peer delinquencyinfluencing the respondents delinquency. Likewise, research has sug-
gested that some individuals are more likely than others to adopt the criminal beliefs of
peers (Anderson, 1999).
Furthermore, susceptible individuals are more likely to experience given crimes and
their consequences as pleasurable (e.g., Brezina and Piquero, 2003; Katz, 1988; Topalli,
2006; Wood et al., 1997). Some individuals are more likely to find crime intrinsically re-
inforcing; crime provides them with pleasure, thrills and excitement, a sense of power
or control, and feelings of self-worth. Susceptible individuals are also more likely to find
the common consequences of crime pleasurable. For example, they obtain much pleasure
from the money and property they obtain and the status accorded to them by certain
others.2
In sum, susceptible individuals are more likely than others to notice and exaggerate
the crime and criminal beliefs of peers, are more inclined to model criminal behavior and
adopt criminal beliefs, and are more likely to find crime and the common consequences
of crime pleasurable. Those high in resistance are less likely than others to have these
reactions to the events and conditions described by social learning theory.3,4
Hot and Cool Processing. It is important to note that these reactions to crimino-
genic events and conditions may involve both hot and cool processing (Skinner and
Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007; Van Gelder, 2013; also see Van Gelder and De Vries, 2012).
Hot processing involves rapid reactions with little or no conscious deliberation; instead,
2. Individuals, of course, also differ in the extent to which they find crime and its consequences aver-
sive. For example, some are more likely than others to feel shame, guilt, fear, anxiety, or remorse
from their crime or their contemplation of crime (Svensson et al., 2013; Van Gelder, 2013; Wood
et al., 1997). These reactions, however, involve the restraints against crime and fall under the realm
of control theory. The TCRS focuses on factors that influence the level of motivation for crime
rather than on those that restrain the commission of crime.
3. The TCRS focuses on the reaction to criminogenic events and conditions, but it is also relevant
to the reaction to prosocial events and conditions, such as association with conventional others,
exposure to models whose conventional behavior is reinforced, and instruction in beliefs favorable
to conventional behavior. These events and conditions are more likely to function as attractions to
conventional behavior for some people than for others. And the factors that influence the reaction
to criminogenic events and conditions should also influence the reaction to prosocial events and
conditions.
4. Just as individuals differ in their resistance and susceptibility to the pressures for and attractions
to crime, they differ in their resistance and susceptibility to the restraints against crime. That is,
individuals differ in their reaction to controls, such as sanctions or the threat of sanction (e.g.,
Piquero et al., 2011). The concept of self-control is perhaps most relevant here, although other
factors such as drug use and emotional state are also important. Those low in self-control are said
to be more resistant to the restraints against crime (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). This resistance
stems from the fact that they are less aware of restraints, less concerned about them, and less able
to control themselves even if aware of and concerned about them. As such, they should be more
likely than others to engage in crime when they experience a given set of controls (see Hay and
Meldrum [2016] and Piquero et al. [2011] for reviews of the research here).
reactions are driven by emotion or learned habits. To illustrate, individuals may have an
immediate negative emotional reaction to physical abuse and respond with aggression,
with little conscious deliberation involved. Cool processing involves conscious delibera-
tion, usually with some consideration of the costs and benefits of possible reactions. Sev-
eral factors are said to influence the likelihood of hot versus cool processing, including
features of the environment and traits such as impulsivity (Agnew, 2011; Thomas and
McGloin, 2013; Van Gelder and De Vries, 2012). Certain factors in the TCRS, such as
negativity, may also influence the type of processing that occurs (as will be discussed
shortly).
KEY VARIABLES IN THE THEORY OF CRIME RESISTANCE

AND SUSCEPTIBILITY
The earlier discussion and selected research suggest that four factors may play a key
role in determining the individuals level of resistance and susceptibility to given crimino-
genic events and conditions. Susceptible individuals 1) tend to react to the environment
in a negative manner, 2) place a high absolute and relative emphasis on pleasure and
sensation seeking, and 3) are low in conventional efficacy and perceived social support
but high in criminal efficacy and support. The effect of a fourth factor on resistance and
susceptibility depends on the nature of the environment. Those high in 4) environmental
sensitivity are more susceptible to crime in criminogenic environments but more resistant
in conventional environments.
These factors are the most immediate determinants of the reaction to the criminogenic
events and conditions described by strain and social learning theories, including the per-
ception and interpretation of these events and conditions, the emotional reaction to them,
and the behavioral inclinations they prompt. As will be discussed in more detail, each fac-
tor encompasses or overlaps with several variables, many being psychological traits. And
each factor is a direct function of biological and social variables, including social learning,
strain, received social support, and situational variables.
NEGATIVITY
Those high in negativity are more likely to view the events and conditions described
by strain theory as very bad and unjust; to become upset in response to them, especially
angry; and to experience an inclination to respond in an aggressive or rebellious manner.
Negative individuals are also more likely to imagine that they are experiencing strains
and to anticipate experiencing strains in the future. As such, negative individuals are
more likely to experience certain events and conditions as pressures for crime. In ad-
dition, negative individuals are more likely to model crime, adopt criminal beliefs, and
experience crime as pleasurable. Crime is compatible with their aggressive and rebellious
inclinations, promises or provides relief from their perceived strain, and is easy to justify
or excuse given their perceived mistreatment by others.
Negativity encompasses several individual traits, including difficult temperament
(Lahey et al., 2008; Wachs, 2006); neuroticism, especially the hostility or anger facet
(Carver and Connor-Smith, 2011); trait anger (Finan et al., 2011); negative emotion-
ality (Agnew et al., 2002; Caspi et al., 1994: DeLisi and Vaughn, 2014); hostile ori-
entation (Simons et al., 2011); perceptual negativity (Robinson and Liu, 2013); hostile
192 AGNEW
attribution of intent (De Castro et al., 2002; Losel and Bender, 2003); (poor) emotional
regulation (Folkman and Moskowitz, 2004); sensitivity to punishment (Colder et al.,
2012); sensitivity to injustice directed at oneself and the belief that one is unjustly treated
(Bondu and Elsner, 2015; Faccenda and Pantaleon, 2011; Schmitt et al., 2010); and pes-
simism (low optimism) (Carver, Scheier, and Segerstrom, 2010; Nes and Segerstrom,
2006). Most such traits have a strong biological basis (e.g., McCaffery, 2011; Vaske and
Boisvert, 2015; Winiarski, Smearman, and Brennan, 2015).
Negativity is also a function of social learning. Individuals may learn to view certain
events and conditions as very bad and unjust, to experience anger and other negative
emotions in response to them, and to believe that an aggressive and rebellious response is
appropriate (e.g., Baron, Forde, and Kennedy, 2001; Bernard, 1990; Griffiths, Yule, and
Gartner, 2011). To give a few examples: Individuals may be taught beliefs that define what
most would consider to be minor slights as serious insults (Anderson, 1999; Wolfgang and
Ferracuti, 1982). They may learn hyper-masculine identities, which proscribe an angry
and aggressive reaction to events and conditions defined as threats to ones masculinity
(Messerschmidt, 1993). And they may be exposed to audience members who exagger-
ate the severity of the slights they have experienced, as well as encourage an aggressive
response (Felson, 1982).
Negativity is also a function of strain and low social support. A history of severe and
chronic strain contributes to those traits that comprise negativity, especially for individu-
als low in conventional social support (Agnew, 2006; Bernard, 1990; Colvin, Cullen, and
Vander Ven, 2002). In addition, negativity is highest during those times when individu-
als are experiencing strains. For example, negativity is higher when individuals are in the
midst of status disputes with symmetrical others (Griffiths, Yule, and Gartner, 2011;
Hughes and Short, 2014; Short, 1997; also see Baron, Forde, and Kennedy, 2001). Indi-
viduals who believe that their status is threatened are especially sensitive to slights and
more inclined to respond in an aggressive manner.
Research has indicated that many of the traits associated with negativity have a
strong relationship to crime, with certain research also suggesting that they condition
the effect of strains on crime (e.g., Agnew et al., 2002; De Castro et al., 2002; Jones
et al., 2011; earlier citations). It is unclear, however, to what extent the effect of these
traits is due to the fact that they influence the susceptibility to criminogenic events
and conditions versus the exposure to such events and conditions (as will be discussed
shortly).
PLEASURE AND SENSATION SEEKING

Those high in pleasure and sensation seeking place a strong absolute and relative em-
phasis on the quick acquisition of money, material possessions, power over and autonomy
from others, prestige, thrills and excitement, and physical pleasure. And they place a low
emphasis on the hard work and sacrifice that are ordinarily required to achieve most such
goals. As Agnew (1980: 58) stated, they want to live a life with many benefits and few
demands. This idea is a central theme in certain of the early theoretical work in criminol-
ogy (for overviews, see Agnew, 1980, 1984a; Matza and Sykes, 1961). For example, Matza
and Sykes (1961) argued that many delinquents adopt values characterizing the leisure
class, including a disdain for hard work and an emphasis on the sudden acquisition of
large sums of money, conspicuous consumption, and thrills and excitement. And limited
research has suggested that these goals often occur together in the same individuals (Ag-
new, 1980, 1984a).
Pleasure and sensation seeking increases the attraction to crime because crime is of-
ten perceived as an efficient vehicle for achieving these goals. Furthermore, pleasure
and sensation seeking increases the likelihood that many events and conditions will be
viewed as bad and elicit negative emotions, particularly events and conditions that in-
volve deprivation of these goals. This includes jobs in the secondary labor market, which
are monotonous, poorly paid, and involve excessive control. Likewise, it includes most
secondary school experiences. In addition, pleasure and sensation seeking increases the
inclination for aggressive and rebellious coping because it involves an attraction to risky
and exciting activities.
Pleasure and sensation seeking overlaps with several traits, most obviously sensation
seeking (Roberti, 2004), but also the fun-seeking component of the behavioral approach
system (Taylor and Eitle, 2015) and maladaptive hedonism (Ksendzova et al., 2015). Plea-
sure and sensation seeking has some biological basis (Roberti, 2004; Vaske, 2015), but it
is also influenced by social learning and social circumstances. For example, Matza and
Sykes (1961) argued that the values they described receive some emphasis in the larger
cultural system. Anderson (1999) argued that many of these goals are a part of the code
of the street and are learned by certain poor, inner-city residents. Pleasure and sensation
seeking is also a function of strain. In fact, a central theme in the strain and subcultural
deviance literatures has been that individuals and groups sometimes adapt to deprivation
in the midst of plenty by placing an exaggerated emphasis on status, conspicuous con-
sumption, autonomy and power, and daring (e.g., Agnew and Kaufman, 2010; Anderson,
1999). And pleasure and sensation seeking is influenced by situational factors. For ex-
ample, adolescents place more emphasis on pleasure and sensation seeking when in the
company of peers (OBrien et al., 2011).
Research has indicated that the values and goals that comprise pleasure and sensation
seeking are related to crime, drug use, and related variables, such as anomie (Agnew,
1980, 1984a, 1984b). This is especially the case with sensation seeking, which has a sub-
stantial direct effect on crime and conditions the effect of strains on crime in certain stud-
ies (e.g., Roberti, 2004; Taylor and Eitle, 2015; Wood et al., 1995). Furthermore, these
goals have often been reported in qualitative studies of street offenders (e.g., Shover,
1996; Wright and Decker, 1997). (It should be noted that sensation seeking is a compo-
nent of low self-control as defined by Gottfredson and Hirschi [1990], but data indicate
that a distinction should be made between the desire for rewards, including thrills and
excitement, and the ability to restrain oneself from acting on this desire [Burt, Sweeten,
and Simons, 2014; Duckworth and Kern, 2011; Schulz, 2015; Steinberg, 2010].).5
CONVENTIONAL EFFICACY AND PERCEIVED SOCIAL SUPPORT

Those high in conventional efficacy and perceived social support believe that they can
legally address the challenges and opportunities they confront in the major life domains,
5. In the psychological research, low self-control has been defined largely in terms of the ability to
exercise self-restraint (Hay and Meldrum, 2016; Tangney, Baumeister, and Boone, 2004). And
self-control is measured with items such as I am good at resisting temptation and I never allow
myself to lose control (Tangney, Baumeister, and Boone, 2004).
194 AGNEW
including family, school, work, peer group, and community. In particular, they believe that
they have the ability, motivation, and resources to cope legally with strains and achieve
conventional success. And they believe that they can obtain support from others if nec-
essary. Although efficacy and social support are usually treated as distinct concepts, they
are combined here because they serve similar functions and mutually reinforce one an-
other. Social support, in fact, usually involves providing others with the encouragement,
skills, and resources needed to cope effectively. And those with good coping skills and
resources can better secure conventional social support.
Conventional efficacy and support reduces the likelihood that strains will be viewed as
uncontrollable and, in doing so, reduces the negative evaluation of strains, negative emo-
tional reaction to them, and inclination for aggression and rebellious coping. Strains are
much less upsetting when individuals believe that they can readily cope with them (e.g.,
Mirowsky and Ross, 1989). Conventional efficacy and support also reduces the attraction
to crime and the susceptibility to criminal peers and beliefs. Those high in conventional
efficacy and support believe that they can obtain the rewards of crime through legal chan-
nels, they have less need for criminal peers, and they are better able to resist the influence
of such peers.
Conventional efficacy and support overlap with self-efficacy, mastery, internal locus of
control, and (low) powerlessness (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Gecas, 1989; Mirowsky and Ross,
1989), (low) fatalism (Brezina, Tekin, and Topalli, 2009), high and stable self-esteem
(Kernis, Grannemann, and Barclay, 1989), and of course perceived social support. Con-
ventional efficacy and support are a direct function of a range of individual traits, many
with a strong biological basis. These traits include intelligence, aspects of conscientious-
ness (Jones, Miller, and Lynam, 2011), psychological flexibility (Agnew, 2013; Bradley
et al., 2014; Southwick, Vythilingam, and Charney, 2005), social and problem-solving
skills (Agnew, 2006), hardiness (Maddi, 2013), and ego resiliency (Alessandri et al., 2014).
Conventional efficacy and support are also a direct function of social learning and expe-
riences. Bandura (1997) described the mechanisms by which efficacy is taught by others
and the manner in which it emerges from the successful coping experiences of individu-
als. Related to this, conventional efficacy and support are fostered by prior experiences
with moderate strain, especially when individuals could successfully cope with such strain.
Severe and chronic strain, however, reduce efficacy and support (Bandura, 1997; Rutter,
2006; Seery, Holman, and Silver, 2010). And conventional efficacy and support are of
course a direct function of received or actual social support from conventional others and
institutions (Uchino and Birmingham, 2011; Wethington and Kessler, 1986). (It should be
noted that perceived social support usually has a greater effect on outcomes than does
received social support, with the effect of received support often mediated through per-
ceived support [Wethington and Kessler, 1986].)
Research has suggested that self-efficacy and perceived social support are associated
with lower crime and other positive outcomes. They have direct effects on crime and,
in some cases, condition the effect of criminogenic events and conditions on crime (e.g.,
Agnew, 2006; Cullen, 1994; Donnellan et al., 2005; LeBel et al., 2008; Makarios and Sams,
2013). The research here, however, has been somewhat mixed, which may stem from the
fact that certain studies have employed overly general measures of self-efficacy and social
support. Measures should focus specifically on the perceived ability to cope legally with
criminogenic strains and opportunities in various life domains (Agnew, 2006: 968). Also,
as suggested, it is critical to distinguish conventional from criminal efficacy and support,
with criminal efficacy and support increasing crime (Brezina and Topalli, 2012; Cullen,
1994).
GENERAL SENSITIVITY TO THE ENVIRONMENT

Recent research has suggested that some individuals are more sensitive than others
to environmental influences, both criminal and prosocial. For example, these individuals
are more vulnerable to the criminogenic effects of stressors (e.g., harsh parenting and
discrimination) and association with delinquent peers, but they are also more likely to
benefit from positive experiences, such as supportive parenting and school involvement
(Belsky, Bakermans-Kranenburg, and van Ijzendoorn, 2007; Daw et al., 2012; Simons
et al., 2011). Because this sensitivity to the environment increases the susceptibility to
both criminal and prosocial influences, the effect of this variable on crime depends on
whether one is in a criminogenic environment (high strain, exposure to criminal others)
or a prosocial environment.
Environmental sensitivity seems to be a function of genetic factors that influence the
sensitivity to both rewards and punishments (Belsky, Bakermans-Kranenburg, and van
Ijzendoorn, 2007). But it may also be a function of social learning and other social ex-
periences. For example, although the susceptibility to peer influence has some biological
basis (Kretschmer, Dijkstra, and Veenstra, 2015; Vaske, 2015), it is also the case that
certain individuals are taught values that emphasize conformity and are differentially re-
inforced for conformity (Agnew, 2011; Akers, 2009). Furthermore, this susceptibility may
be motivated by the desire for social acceptance and approval, with conformity being
more likely among those with low status, little sense of belonging, and poor self-esteem
(Bond and Smith, 1996; Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004; Stautz and Cooper, 2014; Vaske,
2015). This may explain why immigrant youth are more susceptible to delinquent peer in-
fluence; their tenuous social status and identity create a strong desire for social acceptance
(DiPietro and McGloin, 2012). In addition, adolescents may be more susceptible to peer
influence when involved in unstructured, unsupervised activities with peers (Hughes and
Short, 2014; Osgood et al., 1996). Additional research is needed on this factor, including
its relation to the other factors influencing susceptibility and resistance, and the reasons
for increased sensitivity to the environment.
NOTE ON THE ROLE OF AGENCY

Individuals may also exercise some agency when reacting to criminogenic events and
conditions. In particular, individuals may deliberate with themselves and others when de-
ciding on how to interpret and respond to events and conditions (Agnew, 2011; McLeod,
2012). And, as a result of such deliberation, their reaction may depart from what would
be predicted based on their individual and social characteristics. For example, an indi-
vidual may consider several ways of reacting to economic strain, imagining the possible
consequences of each, and choose a response that departs from what would be expected
based on his or her standing on the factors listed earlier. The nature of the agentic pro-
cess and the factors influencing it are discussed in Agnew (1995, 2011) and other sources
(Bandura, 2001, 2006; Giordano, Cernkovich, and Rudolph, 2002). And the exercise of
agency is compatible with the notion of cool processing, wherein individuals consciously
deliberate before responding to events and conditions. But the effect of agency on re-
sistance and susceptibility is, by definition, not fully predictable. It is for this reason that
196 AGNEW
agency is not listed as one of the key factors allowing us to explain and predict the reaction
to criminogenic events and conditions.
RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS
The TCRS states that individuals differ in their reaction to criminogenic events and
conditions, including their perception and interpretation of these events and conditions,
their emotional reaction, and the behavioral inclinations they experience. These differ-
ences influence the extent to which the events and conditions function as pressures for
or attractions to crime. If the TCRS is correct, we would expect substantial differences in
the reaction to given events and conditions, with the key variables in the TCRS largely
explaining these differences. For example, those high in negativity should be more likely
to interpret given strains as bad, unjust, and uncontrollable through legal channels; more
likely to become angry in response to them; more likely to experience aggressive inclina-
tions; more likely to experience crime and the common consequences of crime as pleasur-
able; and more inclined to model criminal behavior and adopt criminal beliefs. And these
differences in reaction should contribute to differences in crime.
CHALLENGES IN TESTING THE TCRS WITH EXISTING DATA

The first challenge in testing the TCRS involves developing measures of the four factors
mentioned earlier. Each factor contains several dimensions, and researchers should ide-
ally employ questions or markers (e.g., genetic markers for environmental sensitivity) to
measure each dimension. Furthermore, researchers should verify that these dimensions
hang together or load on the four factors as described. Since each factor encompasses
or overlaps with existing variables, researchers should be able to at least roughly measure
the factors with existing survey data. But it is unlikely that any existing survey has good
measures for all four factors.
The second challenge is to measure the individuals exposure to given criminogenic
events and conditions, independent of the individuals reaction to them. This is not easily
done with the respondent self-reports that dominate survey research because self-reports
may reflect the previous differences in reaction. For example, those high in negativity
should be more likely to report that they experience given strains, even when their ac-
tual exposure to such strains is the same as other individuals. Researchers, however, have
developed several techniques for measuring exposure to events and conditions indepen-
dent of respondent self-reports (e.g., Agnew, 2001, 2011; King, 2005). These include 1)
measures from official agencies (e.g., school reports of grades); 2) measures from the sub-
jects associates, who report on the subjects experiences or on their own behaviors (e.g.,
peer reports of their delinquency); 3) measures from trained observers; 4) experiments
in which subjects are exposed to the given events and conditions under controlled condi-
tions; and 5) vignette studies in which subjects read or hear descriptions of given events
and conditions. None of these methods are perfect, but they at least partly overcome the
bias of self-report measures.
The third challenge is to measure the individuals reaction to given events and condi-
tions, as described earlier. That is, to what extent do individuals consider a given strain to
be bad, unjust, and uncontrollable through legal channels; what is their emotional reac-
tion to the strain; and what are their inclinations for responding to it? Also, how inclined
are individuals to model the criminal behavior of others and adopt their criminal beliefs?
And to what extent do individuals find crime and the common consequences of crime
pleasurable? Certain of these reactions are occasionally measured in surveys (e.g., Akers
et al., 1979; Matsueda, Kreager, and Huizinga, 2006; Rebellon et al., 2012). But most such
reactions are usually neglected. Researchers, for example, rarely ask respondents how
bad, unjust, and uncontrollable they view the strains they experience.6
Future studies can collect these types of data, but a full test of the TCRS with existing
data would be difficult if not impossible. Nevertheless, it is possible to provide a prelimi-
nary test of two key predictions of the TCRS: The factors affecting the reaction to crim-
inogenic events and conditions should 1) condition the effect of criminogenic events and
conditions on crime and 2) have direct effects on crime, with controls for criminogenic
events and conditions.
CONDITIONING EFFECTS
Criminogenic events and conditions, such as strains and association with delinquent
peers, should have a larger effect on crime when the factors in the TCRS increase suscep-
tibility. For example, strains such as being bullied and harsh parental discipline should be
more likely to result in crime among those low in conventional efficacy and support and
high in negativity, pleasure and sensation seeking, and environmental sensitivity. Also, as
noted earlier, social and self-controls should have a larger effect on crime when suscepti-
bility is high. Controls are not as necessary when individuals are resistant to the pressures
for and attractions to crime.
It is difficult, however, to detect interaction effects in the type of survey research
that dominates criminology (McClelland and Judd, 1993; also see Luthar, Cicchetti, and
Becker, 2000). The major reason for this is that the variance of the interaction term is
likely to be restricted, usually because there is limited variation in the variables that com-
prise this term. Researchers can overcome this problem by oversampling extreme cases or
by using alternative methods of data collection, such as experiments and vignette studies.
Furthermore, measuring criminogenic events and conditions with respondent self-reports
will likely bias the analysis against finding significant interaction effects. As noted, self-
report measures partly reflect the impact of factors such as negativity and pleasure and
sensation seeking. But the impact of these factors is not fully reflected in the self-report
measures. The self-report measures usually focus on whether an event or condition has
been experienced; they do not measure the full gambit of reactions described earlier (e.g.,
how bad, unjust, and uncontrollable is the event and condition). Given this fact, the fac-
tors in the TCRS should still condition the effect of self-reported criminogenic events and
conditions on crime. Research has provided limited support for this argument, although
the results have been somewhat mixed (e.g., Agnew, 2006; Agnew et al., 2002; Luthar,
Cicchetti, and Becker, 2000; Simons et al., 2011).
6. The general assessments described by Agnew and Messner (2015) get at certain of these reactions
at a general level. For example, the assessments measure whether individuals view crime as plea-
surable or their social world as harsh, unjust, and upsetting. And the factors described in the TCRS
are quite relevant to these general assessments; they represent perhaps the key nomothetic fac-
tors affecting the subjective judgments of the variables that now dominate crime research.
198 AGNEW
DIRECT EFFECTS
The factors in the TCRS should also have a direct effect on crime, although the di-
rection of the effect for environmental sensitivity will depend on whether the individual
is in a prosocial or criminogenic environment. To understand why direct effects are pre-
dicted, consider control theory. Technically, control variables should condition the effect
of criminogenic events and conditions on crime. Pressures and attractions should have a
smaller effect on crime when controls are strong and a larger effect when controls are
weak. Conversely, controls should have little effect on crime when pressures and attrac-
tions are weak; restraint is unnecessary when individuals are not motivated to engage in
crime. Control theorists, however, state that controls have direct effects on crime and they
rarely investigate conditioning effects. The focus on direct effects is justified by arguing
that all individuals are strongly motivated to engage in crime. They are strongly motivated
because they are naturally self-interested and regularly encounter circumstances where it
is their self-interest to engage in crime (Hirschi, 1969: Kornhauser, 1978). That is, they
regularly encounter pressures for or attractions to crime.
There is now good evidence for substantial variation in the motivation for crime
(Greenberg, 2015). Furthermore, there is reason to question the assumption that indi-
viduals are strictly self-interested (Agnew, 2011, 2014). Nevertheless, most people at least
occasionally encounter pressures for or attractions to crime. Most people periodically ex-
perience strains, for example (Maddi, 2013). As such, controls tend to have a significant
direct effect on crime (Agnew and Brezina, 2015). A similar argument can be made with
respect to those factors affecting resistance and susceptibility. As most people at least oc-
casionally experience criminogenic events and conditions, the factors in the TCRS should
have a significant direct effect on crime. Researchers testing for direct effects, however,
need to control for those variables associated with the leading crime theories.
The TCRS is built on the distinction between the exposure to criminogenic events and
conditions and the reaction to them. The TCRS focuses on those factors affecting the
reaction to given criminogenic events and conditions, but these factors may also affect the
exposure to such events and conditions. For example, those high in negativity are more
likely to provoke negative treatment from others; select themselves into environments
where negative treatment is likely, social control is low, and delinquents are common (e.g.,
delinquent peer groups); and be sorted into such environments (Roberts and Caspi, 2003;
Wachs, 2006). Similar arguments can be made for pleasure and sensation seeking and
(low) conventional efficacy and support. As such, the factors in the TCRS may indirectly
affect crime through their impact on variables associated with the leading crime theories.
Conversely, the variables in these theories may impact negativity, pleasure and sensation
seeking, and conventional efficacy and support. As noted, for example, chronic and severe
strain increases negativity. Given these mutual influences, it is critical to control for the
major criminogenic events and conditions when examining the direct effect of the factors
in the TCRS on crime. If these factors have a significant direct effect with these controls,
this suggests that such factors are consequential because of their impact on the reaction,
rather than on the exposure, to criminogenic events and conditions.7
7. Although the key factors in the TCRS are related to levels of strain, social learning, and control,
the relationship is far from perfect. For example, Agnew (2015) argued that African Americans
are more likely than Whites to experience a range of criminogenic events and conditions, such
In addition to the examination of direct effects, researchers should also explore whether
the factors in the TCRS interact with one another in their effect on crime. Certain of these
factors are likely related to one another, such that some individuals possess several factors
that increase susceptibility or that increase resistance to crime. The factors are related be-
cause they influence one another. For example, those high in negativity are more likely to
alienate conventional others, thereby reducing conventional social supports (e.g., Agnew
et al., 2002; Nes and Segerstrom, 2006). Also, the factors share certain causes in common.
Chronic poverty, for example, likely contributes to negativity and low conventional effi-
cacy and support (e.g., Agnew, 2006; Bernard, 1990; Cullen, 1994). If these factors interact
in their effect on crime, then individuals who possess several factors increasing suscepti-
bility will be especially susceptible to criminogenic events and conditions. Such individuals
should therefore be targeted for intervention, particularly if they reside in criminogenic
environments.
GROUP AND COMMUNITY DIFFERENCES IN RESISTANCE AND

SUSCEPTIBILITY
Researchers should also use the TCRS to help explain group and community differ-
ences in offending because there is good reason to expect group and community differ-
ences in the four factors described by the TCRS. Research, for example, has suggested
that males are higher in negativity (Bondu and Elsner, 2015; Root and Denham, 2010;
Sigfusdottir and Silver, 2009), higher in pleasure and sensation seeking (Arnett, 1994;
Campbell, 2006; Roberti, 2004), and lower in certain aspects of conventional efficacy and
support (Alessandri et al., 2014; Davis, Burleson, and Kruszewski, 2011). In addition,
males may be more susceptible to deviant peers (McGloin and DiPietro, 2013; Sumter
et al., 2009). Likewise, adolescents are more likely than adults to be high in negativity
(Agnew, 2003; Bondu and Elsner, 2015), high in pleasure and sensation seeking (Arnett,
1994; Burt, Sweeten, and Simons, 2014; Casey, Jones, and Hare, 2008; Colder et al., 2012;
Steinberg, 2010), high in susceptibility to negative peer influence (Monahan, Steinberg,
and Caufman, 2009; Sumter et al., 2009), and low in conventional efficacy and support
(Agnew, 2003). There is also evidence for community and societal differences in suscepti-
bility and resistance. For example, evidence suggests that individuals in certain communi-
ties and societies are higher in negativity and susceptibility to peer influence as a result of
differences in strain and in the cultural emphasis on collectivism and conformity (Agnew,
2003; Bernard, 1990; Bond and Smith, 1996; Horton et al., 2012).
CONCLUSION
Strain and social learning theories focus on the individuals exposure to events and con-
ditions that generally create pressure for or an attraction to crime. Control theories focus
as discrimination, chronic poverty, and residence in very poor communities. But he went on to
argue that African Americans have developed an adaptive subculture to cope with discrimination
and oppression. As a result, African Americans are as likely or more likely than Whites to possess
many of those factors that foster resistance to crime, especially aspects of conventional efficacy and
support (e.g., support from extended family and religion, flexibility in coping, and high self-esteem;
also see American Psychological Association, 2008; Barbarin, 1993; Bell and Nkomo, 1998; Burt
and Simons, 2015; Hughes et al., 2006).
200 AGNEW
on the factors that restrain individuals from responding to these pressures and attractions
with crime. The theory of crime resistance and susceptibility (TCRS), by contrast, focuses
on those factors that influence the extent to which given events and conditions are experi-
enced as pressures for or attractions to crime. Individuals high in resistance are less likely
than most others to experience given events and conditions as pressures for or attractions
to crime, whereas those high in susceptibility are more likely. The TCRS draws heavily
on constructionist perspectives, the resilience research, general strain theory, and several
additional literatures, both inside and outside of criminology, that have pointed to fac-
tors that influence the reaction to events and conditions. The TCRS, then, is not based
on an original insight. Just the opposite: Many other researchers and perspectives have
stated that individuals differ in their reactions to given events and conditions, including
those described by the leading crime theories. The TCRS, however, builds on this work
in several key ways.
Most notably, the TCRS more fully describes the nature of resistance and susceptibil-
ity, with a focus on the particular perceptions, interpretations, emotional reactions, and
behavioral inclinations that influence the extent to which criminogenic events and condi-
tions function as pressures for or attractions to crime. The events and conditions described
by strain theory are more likely to function as pressures for crime to the extent that they
are seen as very bad, unjust, and uncontrollable through legal means; elicit strong neg-
ative emotions, especially anger; and prompt aggressive or rebellious inclinations. The
events and conditions described by social learning theory are more likely to function as
attractions to crime to the extent that individuals find crime and the common conse-
quences of crime pleasurable, and they are inclined to model crime and adopt criminal
beliefs.
This specification of the nature of resistance and susceptibility distinguishes the TCRS
from the previously mentioned literatures. For example, most of the resilience research
has been empirically driven, searching for factors that distinguish nonoffenders from of-
fenders in high-risk environments. Little attention has been devoted to the mechanisms
by which such factors confer protection (Luthar, Cicchetti, and Becker, 2000). The re-
silience research, therefore, has focused on all factors that promote positive adaptation
in the face of adversity, with many or most such factors involving social and self-controls.
The TCRS only focuses on those factors that influence resistance and susceptibility, which
is distinct from control. And although certain of the factors influencing resistance and sus-
ceptibility have been mentioned in the resilience research, there has been little discussion
about why they reduce the likelihood of offending in the presence of criminogenic events
and conditions.
The TCRS is also distinguished from the other work in that it points to four key sets of
factors that determine the extent of resistance and susceptibility to criminogenic events
and conditions. The resilience research, general strain theory, the larger stress and coping
literature, and constructionist perspectives each have pointed to a long list of particular
factors that influence the reaction to events and conditionsfar too many factors for re-
searchers to incorporate readily into their work. Other literatures have focused on single
factors, such as social support, negative attributional intent, or sensation seeking. The
TCRS, by contrast, states that individuals are most susceptible to criminogenic events
and conditions when four conditions hold: 1) They have a negative orientation toward
the world, 2) are focused on their own pleasure and sensation seeking, 3) do not believe
Figure 2. Revised Paradigm for the Causes of Crime Research (Direct

and Interactive Effects Shown)
Strains
(pressures
for crime)
Controls
(restraints
against crime)
Crime
Factors Affecting
Resistance/Susceptibility
Social Learning
for Crime
(attractions to
crime)
that they have the ability and support to cope legally, and 4) have a general sensitivity
to the environment (and are in criminogenic environments). These four factors derive
largely from the specification of the nature of resistance and susceptibility in the TCRS.
Furthermore, the TCRS is more comprehensive than most of the literatures from which
it draws. For example, general strain theory only focuses on those factors that affect the
reaction to strains. The TCRS focuses on the factors affecting the reaction to a range
of criminogenic events and conditions, spanning both strain and social learning theories.
Constructionist perspectives focus on how the perception, interpretation, and response to
events and conditions is socially constructed. The TCRS takes account of social influences,
but it also states that a range of traits with a strong biological basis influence the reaction
to criminogenic events and conditions. And the resilience research only focuses on factors
that explain nonoffending among those in high-risk environments. The TCRS focuses on
factors that affect both the resistance and the susceptibility to criminogenic events and
conditions. The TCRS, therefore, addresses both Type 1 errors (those falsely predicted
to offend) and Type 2 errors (those falsely predicted to conform).
In sum, although the TCRS draws heavily on several literatures, it builds on these lit-
eratures in important ways. And, in doing so, it expands the master paradigm in criminol-
ogy. As indicated in figure 2, the response to criminogenic events and conditions is not
simply a function of controls. It is also a function of the individuals level of resistance
and susceptibility. The TCRS has the potential to improve substantially the explanation
and prediction of crime. With certain notable exceptions, the four factors at the heart of
the TCRS have been routinely ignored in the mainstream research on crime. Instead, the
202 AGNEW
focus has been on those variables described by strain, social learning, and control the-
ories. And, if supported, the TCRS has important policy implications. Those individuals
who are especially susceptible to crime can be targeted for intervention, particularly when
they are in criminogenic environments, with research suggesting that many of the factors
affecting susceptibility are amenable to change (Finan et al., 2011; Maddi, 2013).
REFERENCES
Agnew, Robert. 1980. Success and anomie: A study of the effect of goals on anomie. The
Sociological Quarterly 21:5364.
Agnew, Robert. 1984a. The work ethic and delinquency. Sociological Focus 17:33746.
Agnew, Robert. 1984b. Autonomy and delinquency. Sociological Perspectives 27:21940.
Agnew, Robert. 1995. Determinism, indeterminism, and crime: An empirical exploration.
Criminology 33:83109.
Agnew, Robert. 2001. Building on the foundation of general strain theory: Specifying the
types of strain most likely to lead to crime and delinquency. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency 38:31961.
Agnew, Robert. 2003. An integrated theory of the adolescent peak in offending. Youth &
Society 34:6399.
Agnew, Robert. 2005. Why Do Criminals Offend? A General Theory of Crime and Delin-
quency. New York: Oxford University Press.
Agnew, Robert. 2006. Pressured Into Crime: An Overview of General Strain Theory. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Agnew, Robert. 2011. Toward a Unified Criminology: Integrating Assumptions about
Crime, People, and Society. New York: New York University Press.
Agnew, Robert. 2013. When criminal coping is likely: An extension of general strain the-
ory. Deviant Behavior 34:65370.
Agnew, Robert. 2014. Social concern and crime: Moving beyond the assumption of simple
self-interest. Criminology 52:132.
Agnew, Robert. 2016. Strain, economic status, and crime. In The Handbook of Crimino-
logical Theory, ed. Alex R. Piquero. New York: Wiley Blackwell.
Agnew, Robert. 2015. Race and youth crime: Why isnt the relationship stronger? Race
and Justice. E-pub ahead of print. doi:10.1177/2153368715597465.
Agnew, Robert, and Timothy Brezina. 2015. Juvenile Delinquency: Causes and Control.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Agnew, Robert, Timothy Brezina, John Paul Wright, and Francis T. Cullen. 2002. Strain,
personality traits, and delinquency: Extending general strain theory. Criminology
40:4372.
Agnew, Robert, and Diane Jones. 1988. Adapting to deprivation: An examination of in-
flated educational expectations. Sociological Quarterly 29:31537.
Agnew, Robert, and Joanne M. Kaufman. 2010. Anomie, Strain, and Subcultural Theories
of Crime. Farnham, U.K.: Ashgate.
Agnew, Robert, and Steven F. Messner. 2015. General assessments and thresholds for
chronic offending: An enriched paradigm for explaining crime. Criminology 53:
57196.
Akers, Ronald L. 2009. Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime
and Deviance. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Akers, Ronald L., Marvin D. Krohn, Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, and Marcia Radosevich. 1979.
Social learning and deviant behavior: A specific test of a general theory. American
Sociological Review 44:63655.
Alessandri, Guido, Bernadette Paula Luengo Kanacri, Nancy Isenberg, Antonio Zuffi-
ano, Michela Milioni, Michele Vecchione, and Gian Vittorio Caprara. 2014. Prosocial-
ity during the transition from late adolescence to young adulthood: The role of effort-
ful control and ego-resiliency. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 40:145165.
American Psychological Association. 2008. APA Task Force on Resilience and Strength
in African American Children and Adolescents. Washington, DC: American Psycho-
logical Association.
Anderson, Elijah. 1999. Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the
Inner City. New York: Norton.
Arnett, Jeffrey. 1994. Sensation seeking: A new conceptualization and a new scale. Per-
sonality and Individual Differences 16:28996.
Bandura, Albert. 1997. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, Albert. 2001. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology 52:126.
Bandura, Albert. 2006. Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psycho-
logical Science 1:16480.
Barbarin, Oscar A. 1993. Coping and resilience: Exploring the inner lives of African
American children. Journal of Black Psychology 19:47892.
Baron, Stephen W., David R. Forde, and Leslie W. Kennedy. 2001. Rough justice. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence 16:66278.
Beaver, Kevin M., J. C. Barnes, and Brian B. Boutwell (eds.). 2015. The Nurture Versus
Biosocial Debate in Criminology. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Bell, Ella L. E., and Stella M. Nkomo. 1998. Armoring: Learning to withstand racial op-
pression. Journal of Comparative Family Studies 29:28595.
Belsky, Jay, Marian J. Bakermans-Kranenburg, and Marinus H. van Ijzendoorn. 2007. For
better and for worse: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Current
Directions in Psychological Science 16:3004.
Benson, Michael L., and Tara L. Sams. 2013. Emotions, choice, and crime. In The
Oxford Handbook of Criminological Theory, eds. Francis T. Cullen and Pamela
Wilcox. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Bernard, Thomas J. 1990. Angry aggression among the truly disadvantaged. Crimino-
logy 28:7396.
Blazak, Randy. 2001. White boys to terrorist men. American Behavioral Scientist 44:982
1000.
Boman, John H. IV, and Jeffrey T. Ward. 2014. Beyond projection: Specifying the types of
peer delinquency misperception at the item and scale levels. Deviant Behavior 35:555
80.
Bond, Rod, and Peter B. Smith. 1996. Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies
using Aschs (1952b, 1956) line judgement task. Psychological Bulletin 119:11137.
Bondu, Rebecca, and Birgit Elsner. 2015. Justice sensitivity in childhood and adolescence.
Social Development 24:42041.
Botchkovar, Ekaterina, Charles Tittle, and Olena Antonaccio. 2013. Strain, coping, and
socioeconomic status: Coping histories and present choices. Journal of Quantitative
204 AGNEW
Bourgois, Philippe. 2003. In Search of Respect. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University

Press.
Bradley, Bekh, Telsie A. Davis, Joanna Kaye, and Aliza Wingo. 2014. Developmental so-
cial factors as promoters of resilience in childhood and adolescence. In The Resilience
Handbook, eds. Martha Kent, Mary C. Davis, and John Reich. New York: Routledge.
Brezina, Timothy. 2010. Anger, attitudes, and aggressive behavior: Exploring the affec-
tive and cognitive foundations of angry aggression. Journal of Contemporary Criminal
Justice 26:186203.
Brezina, Timothy, and Alex R. Piquero. 2003. Exploring the relationship between social
and non-social reinforcement in the context of social learning theory. In Social Learn-
ing Theory and the Explanation of Crime, eds. Ronald L. Akers and Gary F. Jensen.
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Brezina, Timothy, Erdal Tekin, and Volkan Topalli, 2009. Might not be a tomorrow:
A multi-methods approach to anticipated early death and youth crime. Criminology
47:1091129.
Brezina, Timothy, and Volkan Topalli. 2012. Criminal self-efficacy. Criminal Justice and
Behavior 39:104262.
Burt, Callie H., and Ronald L. Simons. 2015. Interpersonal racial discrimination, ethnic-
racial socialization, and offending: Risk and resilience among African American fe-
males. Justice Quarterly 32:53270.
Burt, Callie, H., Gary Sweeten, and Ronald L. Simons. 2014. Self-control through emerg-
ing adulthood: Instability, multidimensionality, and criminological significance. Crim-
inology 52:45087.
Campbell, Anne. 2006. Sex differences in direct aggression: What are the psychological
mediators? Aggression and Violent Behavior 11:23764.
Carver, Charles S., and Jennifer Connor-Smith. 2010. Personality and coping. Annual
Review of Psychology 61:679704.
Carver, Charles S., Michael F. Scheier, and Suzanne C. Segerstrom. 2010. Optimism. Clin-
ical Psychology Review 30:87989.
Casey, B. J., Rebecca M. Jones, and Todd A. Hare. 2008. The adolescent brain. Annals of
the New York Academy of Science 1124:11126.
Caspi, Avshalom, Terrie E. Moffitt, Phil A. Silva, Magda Stouthamer-Loeber, Robert F.
Krueger, and Pamela S. Schmutte. 1994. Are some people crime prone? Replications
of the personality-crime relationship across countries, genders, races, and methods.
Cialdini, Robert B., and Noah J. Goldstein. 2004. Social influence: Compliance and con-
formity. Annual Review of Psychology 55:591621.
Colder, Craig R., Larry W. Hawk Jr., Liliana J. Lengua, William Wiezcorek, Rina Das
Eiden, and Jennifer P. Read. 2012. Trajectories of reinforcement sensitivity during
adolescence and risk for substance use. Journal of Research on Adolescence 23:345
56.
Colvin, Mark, Francis T. Cullen, and Thomas Vander Ven. 2002. Coercion, social support,
and crime: An emerging theoretical consensus. Criminology 40:1942.
Cullen, Francis T. 1994. Social support as an organizing concept for criminology. Justice
Quarterly 11:52759.
Davis, Mary C., Mary H. Burleson, and Denise M. Kruszewski. 2011. Gender: Its re-
lationship to stress exposure, cognitive appraisal/coping processes, stress responses,
and health outcomes. In The Handbook of Stress Science: Biology, Psychology, and
Health, eds. Richard Contrada and Andrew Bauem. New York: Springer.
Daw, Jonathan, Michael Shanahan, Kathleen Mullan Harris, Andrew Smolen, Brett
Haberstick, and Jason D. Boardman. 2012. Genetic sensitivity to peer behaviors, 5HT-
TLPR, smoking, and alcohol consumption. Journal of Health and Social Behavior
54:92108.
De Castro, Bram Orobio, Jan W. Veerman, Willem Koops, Joop D. Bosch, and Heidi
J. Monshouwer. 2002. Hostile attribution of intent and aggressive behavior: A meta-
analysis. Child Development 73:91634.
DeLisi, Matt, and Michael G. Vaughn (eds.). 2014. Foundation for a temperament-based
theory of antisocial behavior and criminal justice system involvement. Journal of
Criminal Justice 42:1025.
DiPietro, Stephanie M., and Jean Marie McGloin. 2012. Differential susceptibility? Im-
migrant youth and peer influence. Criminology 50:71142.
Donnellan, M. Brent, Kali H. Trzesniewski, Richard H. Robins, Terrie E. Moffitt, and
Avshalom Caspi. 2005. Low self-esteem is related to aggression, antisocial behavior,
and delinquency. Psychological Science 16:32835.
Duckworth, Angela Lee, and Margaret L. Kern. 2011. A meta-analysis of the convergent
validity of self-control measures. Journal of Research in Personality 45:25968.
Elliott, Delbert S., David Huizinga, and Suzanne S. Ageton. 1985. Explaining Delin-
quency and Drug Use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Faccenda, Lionel, and Nathalie Pantaleon. 2011. Analysis of the relationship between
sensitivity to injustice, principles of justice and belief in a just world. Journal of Moral
Education 40:491511.
Felson, Marcus, and Rachel Boba. 2010. Crime and Everyday Life. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Felson, Richard. 1982. Impression management and the escalation of aggression and vio-
lence. Social Psychology Quarterly 45:24554.
Finan, Patrick H., Alex J. Zautra, and Rebecca Wershba. 2011. The dynamics of emotion
in adaptation to stress. In The Handbook of Stress Science: Biology, Psychology, and
Health, eds. Richard Contrada and Andrew Bauem. New York: Springer.
Folkman, Susan, and Judith Tedlie Moskowitz. 2004. Coping: Pitfalls and promise. An-
nual Review of Psychology 55:74574.
Froggio, Giacinto, and Robert Agnew. 2007. The relationship between crime and objec-
tive versus subjective strains. Journal of Criminal Justice 35:817.
Ganem, Natasha M. 2010. The role of negative emotion in general strain theory. Journal
of Contemporary Criminal Justice 26:16785.
Gecas, Viktor. 1989. The social psychology of self-efficacy. Annual Review of Sociology
15:291316.
Giordano, Peggy C., Stephen A. Cernkovich, and Jennifer L. Rudolph. 2002. Gender,
crime, and desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal
of Sociology 107:9901064.
Gottfredson, Michael, and Travis Hirschi. 1990. A General Theory of Crime. Palo Alto,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Greenberg, David F. 2015. The contested place of motivation in criminological theory. In
Challenging Criminological Theory: The Legacy of Ruth Kornhauser, eds. Francis T.
206 AGNEW
Cullen, Pamela Wilcox, Robert J. Sampson, and Brendan D. Dooley. New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction.
Griffiths, Elizabeth, Carolyn Yule, and Rosemary Gartner. 2011. Fighting over triv-
ial things: Explaining the issue of contention in violent alterations. Criminology 49:
6194.
Hay, Carter, and Ryan Meldrum. 2016. Self-Control and Crime Over the Life Course. Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Hirschi, Travis. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Horton, Randall, Stephen K. Rice, Nicole Leeper Piquero, and Alex R. Piquero. 2012.
On the variability of anger cross-culturally: An assessment of general strain theorys
primary mediator. Deviant Behavior 33:26081.
Hughes, Diane, James Rodriguez, Emilie P. Smith, Deborah J. Johnson, Howard C.
Stevenson, and Paul Spicer. 2006. Parents ethnic-racial socialization practices: A re-
view of research and directions for future study. Developmental Psychology 42:747
70.
Hughes, Lorrie A., and James F. Short Jr. 2014. Partying, cruising, and hanging in the
streets: Gangs, routine activities, and delinquency and violence in Chicago, 19591962.
Journal of Quantitative Criminology 30:41551.
Jones, Shayne E., Joshua D. Miller, and Donald R. Lynam. 2011. Personality, antisocial
behavior, and aggression: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Criminal Justice 39:329
37.
Katz, Jack. 1988. Seductions of Crime. New York: Basic Books.
Kernis, Michael H., Bruce D. Grannemann, and Lynda C. Barclay. 1989. Stability and
level of self-esteem as predictors of anger arousal and hostility. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 56:101322.
King, Kimberly R. 2005. Why is discrimination stressful? The mediating role of cognitive
appraisal. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 11:20212.
Kornhauser, Ruth. 1978. Social Sources of Delinquency. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Kretschmer, Tina, Jan Kornelis Dijkstra, and Rene Veenstra. 2015. Peer effects and
molecular genetics in adolescent antisocial behavior. In The Routledge International
Handbook of Biosocial Criminology, eds. Matt DeLisi and Michael G. Vaughn.
London, U.K.: Routledge.
Krohn, Marvin D., Susan B. Stern, Terence P. Thornberry, and Sung Joon Jang. 1992.
The measurement of family process variables: The effect of adolescent and parent
perceptions of family life on delinquent behavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology
8:287315.
Ksendzova, Masha, Ravi Iyer, Graham Hill, Sean P. Wojcik, and Ryan T. Howell. 2015.
The portrait of a hedonist: The personality and ethics behind the value of the mal-
adaptive pursuit of pleasure. Personality and Individual Differences 79:6874.
Kurbin, Charis E., Thomas D. Stucky, and Marvin D. Krohn. 2009. Researching Theories
of Crime and Delinquency. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lahey, Benjamin J., Carol A. Van Hulle, Kate Keenan, Paul J. Rathouz, Brian M.
DOnofrio, Joseph Lee Rodgers, and Irwin D. Waldman. 2008. Temperament and
parenting during the first year of life predict future child conduct problems. Journal
of Abnormal Child Psychology 36:113958.
LeBel, Thomas P., Ros Burnett, Shadd Maruna, and Shawn Bushway. 2008. The chicken
and egg of subjective and social factors in desistance from crime. European Journal
of Criminology 5:13159.
Lee, Christine M., Irene M. Geisner, Megan E. Patrick, and Clayton Neighbors. 2010.
The social norms of alcohol-related negative consequences. Psychology of Addictive
Behavior 24:3428.
Link, Bruce G., John Monahan, Ann Stueve, and Francis T. Cullen. 1999. Real in their
consequences: A sociological approach to understanding the association between psy-
chotic symptoms and violence. American Sociological Review 64:31632.
Losel, Friedrich, and Doris Bender. 2003. Protective factors and resilience. In Early Pre-
vention of Adult Antisocial Behaviour, eds. David P. Farrington and Jeremy W. Coid.
Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Luthar, Suniya S., Dante Cicchetti, and Bronwyn Becker. 2000. The construct of re-
silience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development
71:54362.
MacLeod, Jay. 2009. Aint No Makin It. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Maddi, Salvatore R. 2013. Hardiness: Turning Stressful Circumstances into Resilient
Growth. New York: Springer.
Makarios, Matthew D., and Tara L. Sams. 2013. Social support and crime. In The
Oxford Handbook of Criminological Theory, eds. Francis T. Cullen and Pamela
Matsueda, Ross L., Derek A. Kreager, and David Huizinga. 2006. Deterring delinquents:
A rational choice model of theft and violence. American Sociological Review 71:95
122.
Matza, David. 1964. Delinquency and Drift. New York: Wiley.
Matza, David, and Gresham Sykes. 1961. Juvenile delinquency and subterranean values.
American Sociological Review 26:7129.
McClelland, Gary H., and Charles M. Judd. 1993. Statistical difficulties of detecting inter-
actions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin 114:37690.
McCaffery, Jeanne M. 2011. Genetic epidemiology of stress and gene by stress interaction.
In The Handbook of Stress Science: Biology, Psychology, and Health, eds. Richard
Contrada and Andrew Bauem. New York: Springer.
McGloin, Jean Marie, and Stephanie DiPietro. 2013. Girls, friends, and delinquency. In
The Oxford Handbook of Criminological Theory, eds. Francis T. Cullen and Pamela
McLeod, Jane D. 2012. The meaning of stress: Expanding the stress process model. Soci-
ety and Mental Health 2:17286.
Meldrum, Ryan C., Holly V. Miller, and Jamie L. Flexon. 2012. Susceptibility to peer
influence, self-control, and delinquency. Sociological Quarterly 83:10629.
Messerschmidt, James W. 1993. Masculinities and Crime. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Little-
field.
Miller, Holly Ventura. 2010. If your friends jumped off of a bridge, would you do it too?
Delinquent peers and susceptibility to peer influence. Justice Quarterly 27:47391.
Mirowsky, John, and Catherine E. Ross. 1989. Social Causes of Psychological Distress.
New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
208 AGNEW
Monahan, Kathryn C., Laurence Steinberg, and Elizabeth Cauffman. 2009. Affiliation
with antisocial peers, susceptibility to peer influence, and antisocial behavior during
the transition to adulthood. Developmental Psychology 45:152030.
Nes, Lise Solberg, and Suzanne C. Segerstrom. 2006. Dispositional optimism and coping:
A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology 10:23551.
OBrien, Lisa, Dustin Albert, Jason Chein, and Laurence Steinberg. 2011. Adolescents
prefer more immediate rewards when in the presence of their peers. Journal of Re-
search on Adolescence 21:74753.
Osgood, Wayne D., Janet K. Wilson, Patrick M. OMalley, Jerald G. Bachman, and Lloyd
D. Johnston. 1996. Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. American So-
ciological Review 61:63555.
Piquero, Alex R., Raymond Paternoster, Greg Pogarsky, and Thomas Loughran. 2011.
Elaborating the individual difference component in deterrence theory. Annual Re-
view of Law and Social Sciences 7:33560.
Polizzi, David. 2011. Agnews general strain theory reconsidered: A phenomenological
perspective. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology
55:105171.
Pratt, Travis C., Francis T. Cullen, Christine S. Sellers, L. Thomas Winfree Jr., Tamara D.
Madensen, Leah E. Daigle, Noelle E. Fearn, and Jacinta M. Gau. 2009. The empirical
status of social learning theory: A meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly 27:765802.
Rebellon, Cesar J., Michelle E. Manasse, Karen T. Van Gundy, and Ellen S. Cohn. 2012.
Perceived injustice and delinquency: A test of general strain theory. Journal of Crime
and Justice 40:2307.
Reckless, Walter. 1961. The Crime Problem. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Roberti, Joanathan W. 2004. A review of behavioral and biological correlates of sensation
seeking. Journal of Research in Personality 38:25679.
Roberts, Brent W., and Avshalom Caspi. 2003. The cumulative continuity model of
personality development. In Understanding Human Development, eds. Ursula M.
Staudinger and Ulman Lindenberger. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
Robinson, Michael D., and Tianwei Liu. 2013. Perceptual negativity predicts greater reac-
tivity to negative events in daily life. Personality and Individual Differences 55:92630.
Root, Amy Kennedy, and Susanne A. Denham. 2010. The role of gender in the social-
ization of emotion: Key concepts and critical issues. In The Role of Gender in the
Socialization of Emotion: Keys Concepts and Critical Issues, eds. Amy Kennedy Root
and Susanne A. Denham. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rutter, Michael. 2006. Implications of resilience concepts for scientific understanding.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1094:112.
Schmitt, Manfred, Anna Baumert, Mario Gollwitzer, and Jurgen Maes. 2010. The justice
sensitivity inventory: Factorial validity, location in the personality facet space, demo-
graphic pattern, and normative data. Social Justice Research 23:21138.
Schulz, Sonja. 2015. Dont blow your cool: Provocation, violent coping, and the con-
ditioning effects of self-control. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. E-pub ahead of
print. doi:10.1007/s10940-015-9267-4.
Seery, Mark D., E. Alison Holman, and Roxane Cohen Silver. 2010. Whatever does not
kill us: Cumulative lifetime adversity, vulnerability, and resilience. Journal of Person-
ality sand Social Psychology 99:102541.
Short, James F., Jr. 1997. Poverty, Ethnicity, and Violent Crime. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Shover, Neal. 1996. Great Pretenders: Pursuits and Careers of Persistent Thieves. Boulder,
CO: Westview.
Sigfusdottir, Inga-Dora, and Eric Silver. 2009. Emotional reactions to stress among ado-
lescent boys and girls. Youth & Society 40:57190.
Simons, Ronald L., Man Kit Lei, Steven R. H. Beach, Gene H. Brody, Robert A. Philib-
ert, and Frederick X. Gibbons. 2011. Social environments, genes, and aggression: Ev-
idence supporting the differential susceptibility perspective. American Sociological
Review 76:883912.
Skinner, Ellen A., Kathleen Edge, Jeffrey Altman, and Hatley Sherwood. 2003. Searching
for the structure of coping: A review and critique of category systems for classifying
ways of coping. Psychological Bulletin 129:21669.
Skinner, Ellen A., and Melanie J. Zimmer-Gembeck. 2007. The development of coping.
Annual Review of Psychology 58:11944.
Smith, Craig A., and Leslie D. Kirby. 2011. The role of appraisal and emotion in coping
and adaptation. In The Handbook of Stress Science: Biology, Psychology, and Health,
eds. Richard Contrada and Andrew Bauem. New York: Springer.
Southwick, Steven M., Meena Vythilingam, and Dennis S. Charney. 2005. The psychobi-
ology of depression and resilience to stress. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology
1:25591.
Stautz, Kaidy, and Andrew Cooper. 2014. Personality correlates of susceptibility to peer
influence in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence 37:4015.
Steinberg, Laurence. 2010. A dual systems model of adolescent risk-taking. Developmen-
tal Psychobiology 52:21624.
Stogner, John M. 2015. General strain theory and biosocial criminology. In The Nurture
Versus Biosocial Debate in Criminology, eds. Kevin M. Beaver, J. C. Barnes, and
Brian B. Boutwell. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Suls, Jerry, Rene Martin, and Ladd Wheeler. 2002. Social comparison: Why, with whom,
and with what effect? Current Directions in Psychological Science 11:15962.
Sumter, Sindy R., Caroline L. Bokhorst, Laurence Steinberg, and P. Michiel Westenberg.
2009. The developmental pattern of resistance to peer influence in adolescence: Will
the teenager ever be able to resist? Journal of Adolescence 32:100921.
Svensson, Robert, Frank M. Weermen, Lieven J. R. Pauwels, Gerben J. N. Bruinsma,
and Wim Bernasco. 2013. Moral emotions and offending: Do feelings of anticipated
shame and guilt mediate the effect of socialization on offending? European Journal
of Criminology 10:2239.
Tangney, June. P., Roy F. Baumeister, and Angie L Boone. 2004. High self-control pre-
dicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Jour-
nal of Personality 72:271324.
Taylor, John, and David Eitle. 2015. The moderating role of BIS/BAS personality tenden-
cies in the relationship between general strain and crime. Deviant Behavior 36:87489.
Thomas, Kyle J., and Jean Marie McGloin. 2013. A dual systems approach for under-
standing differential susceptibility to processes of peer influence. Criminology 51:435
74.
Topalli, Volkan. 2006. The seductive nature of autotelic crime: How neutralization theory
serves as a boundary condition for understanding hardcore street offending. Sociolog-
ical Inquiry 76:475501.
210 AGNEW
Uchino, Bert N., and Wendy Birmingham. 2011. Stress and support processes. In The
Handbook of Stress Science: Biology, Psychology, and Health, eds. Richard Contrada
and Andrew Bauem. New York: Springer.
Unnever, James D., and Shaun L. Gabbidon. 2011. A Theory of African American Of-
fending: Race, Racism, and Crime. New York: Routledge.
Van Gelder, Jean-Louis. 2013. Beyond rational choice: The hot/cool perspective of crim-
inal decision making. Psychology, Crime & Law 19:74563.
Van Gelder, Jean-Louis, and Reinout E. De Vries. 2012. Traits and states: Integrating
personality and affect into a model of criminal decision making. Criminology 50:637
72.
Vaske, Jamie. 2015. The integration of biological and genetic factors into social learning
theory. In The Nurture Versus Biosocial Debate in Criminology, eds. Kevin M. Beaver,
J. C. Barnes, and Brian B. Boutwell. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Vaske, Jamie C., and Danielle L. Boisvert. 2015. Stress and antisocial behavior. In The
Routledge International Handbook of Biosocial Criminology, eds. Matt DeLisi and
Michael G. Vaughn. London, U.K.: Routledge.
Vollrath, Margarete. 2001. Personality and stress. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology
42:33547.
Wachs, Theodore D. 2006. Contributions of temperament to buffering and sensitization
processes in childrens development. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
1094:2839.
Weisburd, David, and Alex R. Piquero. 2008. How well do criminologists explain crime?
Statistical modeling in published studies. In Crime and Justice: A Review of Research,
vol. 37, ed. Michael Tonry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Wethington, Elaine, and Ronald C. Kessler. 1986. Perceived support, received support,
and adjustment to stressful life events. American Sociological Review 27:7889.
Wheaton, Blair. 2010. The stress process as a successful paradigm. In Advances in the
Conceptualization of the Stress Process: Essays in Honor of Leonard I. Pearlin, eds.
William R. Avison, Carol S. Aneshensel, Scott Schieman, and Blair Wheaton. New
York: Springer.
Williams, Paula G., Timothy W. Smith, Heather E. Gunn, and Bert N. Uchino. 2011.
Personality and stress: Individual differences in exposure, reactivity, and restoration.
In The Handbook of Stress Science: Biology, Psychology, and Health, eds. Richard
Contrada and Andrew Bauem. New York: Springer.
Winiarski, D. Anne, Erica L. Smearman, and Patricia A. Brennan. 2015. Social stress
and the gene-environment influences on crime and delinquency. In The Routledge
International Handbook of Biosocial Criminology, eds. Matt DeLisi and Michael G.
Vaughn. London, U.K.: Routledge.
Wolfgang, Marvin E., and Franco Ferracuti. 1982. The Subculture of Violence. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Wood, Peter B., John K. Cochran, Betty Pfefferbaum, and Bruce J. Arneklev. 1995. Sen-
sation seeking and delinquent substance use: An extension of learning theory. The
Journal of Drug Issues 25:17393.
Wood, Peter B., Walter R. Gove, James A. Wilson, and John K. Cochran. 1997. Nonso-
cial reinforcement and habitual criminal conduct: An extension of learning theory.
Wright, Richard T., and Scott H. Decker. 1997. Armed Robbers in Action. Boston, MA:
Northeastern University Press.
Young, Jacob T., J. C. Barnes, Ryan C. Meldrum, and Frank M. Weerman. 2011. Assess-
ing and explaining misperceptions of peer delinquency. Criminology 49:599630.
Young, Jacob, T., Cesar J. Rebellon, J. C. Barnes, and Frank M. Weerman. 2014. Un-
packing the black box of peer similarity in deviance: Understanding the mechanisms
linking prosocial behavior, peer behavior, and perceptions. Criminology 52:6086.
Young, Jacob, T., Cesar J. Rebellon, J. C. Barnes, and Frank M. Weerman. 2015. What
do alternative measures of peer behavior tell us? Examining the discriminant validity
of multiple methods of measuring peer deviance and the implications for etiological
models. Justice Quarterly 32:62652.
Robert Agnew is the Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Sociology at Emory Univer-
sity. His research focuses on the causes of crime and delinquency, in particular, general
strain theory and the underlying assumptions of crime theories.

AGNEW 2016 Criminology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AGNEW 2016 Criminology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE 2015 SUTHERLAND ADDRESS

A THEORY OF CRIME RESISTANCE AND

KEYWORDS: resistance, susceptibility, resilience, causes, traits, crime theory

Three major theoretical perspectives dominate criminology (Agnew, 2005; Hirschi,

Direct correspondence to Robert Agnew, Department of Sociology, Emory University, 1555

OVERVIEW OF THE BIG THREE THEORIES

SOCIAL LEARNING THEORIES

NATURE OF CRIME RESISTANCE AND SUSCEPTIBILITY

REACTION TO CRIMINOGENIC STRAINS

REACTION TO THE EVENTS AND CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BY SOCIAL

KEY VARIABLES IN THE THEORY OF CRIME RESISTANCE

PLEASURE AND SENSATION SEEKING

CONVENTIONAL EFFICACY AND PERCEIVED SOCIAL SUPPORT

GENERAL SENSITIVITY TO THE ENVIRONMENT

NOTE ON THE ROLE OF AGENCY

CHALLENGES IN TESTING THE TCRS WITH EXISTING DATA

GROUP AND COMMUNITY DIFFERENCES IN RESISTANCE AND

Figure 2. Revised Paradigm for the Causes of Crime Research (Direct

Bourgois, Philippe. 2003. In Search of Respect. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University

You might also like