Theories of Delinquency [616933]

Theories of Delinquency

This page intentionally left blank

Theories of Delinquency
Donald J. Shoemaker
1
2010An Examination of Explanations
of Delinquent Behavior
sixth edition

1
Oxford University Press, Inc., publishes works that further
Oxford University’s objective of excellencein research, scholarship, and education.
Oxford New Y ork
Auckland Cape T own Dar es Salaam Hong Kong KarachiKuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City NairobiNew Delhi Shanghai Taipei T oronto
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France GreeceGuatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal SingaporeSouth Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Copyright © 1984,1990,1996,2000,2005,2010 by Oxford University Press, Inc.
Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
www.oup.com
Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University PressAll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,without the prior permission of Oxford University Press.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Shoemaker, Donald J.Theories of delinquency : an examination of explanations ofdelinquent behavior / Donald J. Shoemaker.— 6th ed.
p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 978-0 -19-537417- 9
1. Juvenile delinquency. I Title.
HV9069.S525 2009
364.36 —dc22 2009017302
987654321
Printed in the United States of America
on acid-free paper

To my grandchildren
Suzannah, Mikayla, Hannah, and Connor
and
in memory of
Julian Alexander

This page intentionally left blank

Preface
Since the publication of the first edition of this book, in 1984, there
have been many changes in the study of delinquency, both in terms of
theoretical development and societal responses to delinquency. Thepurpose of this book has always been, and remains, an attempt topresent, explain, and evaluate important theoretical explanations ofdelinquency. The current edition continues that effort. This sixthedition extends the earlier revisions, updating the literature in mostchapters.
In addition to basic updates in most of the chapters, the sixth edi-
tion of the book continues to examine developments in delinquencytheory. This effort is most evident in Chapter 8, Control Theories, andChapter 12. Much of the material on the general theory of crime hasbeen updated and placed in Chapter 8. Discussions of the general theoryof crime and the turning-points explanation of crime and delinquencyremain in Chapter 12, but attention to the general theory of crime hasbeen expanded and placed in Chapter 8, as a separate section of thatchapter. There are also substantial updated discussions of other theo-ries in Chapter 8, as well as an expanded discussion of social disorgani-zation theory, in Chapter 5, and female delinquency, in Chapter 11.
This edition also continues to include numerous references to in-
ternational examples of research bearing on the theories covered in thevolume. International research and theorizing continue to be impor-tant in the area of theory development, and this book attemps to re-flect this significance.
As is often the case, preparing this revision has involved several
people besides the author. In continuing recognition of contributors

to earlier editions, I would like to acknowledge the collegial support
and assistance of John Ballweg, Clifton Bryant, Ricardo Zarco of theUniversity of the Philippines, Diliman, the late James K. Skipper, Jr.,and the late Edwin Sagarin. I would also like to thank the office staff
in the Department of Sociology at Virginia Tech, who provided im-portant assistance in the preparation of this book. In addition, I wouldlike to express appreciation to James Cook, Oxford editor, who pro-vided important logistical support and encouragement in the produc-tion of this sixth edition. Most of all, I would like to recognize the
support of my wife, Elizabeth, who has been an inspiration in thepreparation of this edition.
D.J.S.
Blacksburg, Virginiaviii preface

Contents
1. Explanations of Delinquency 3
The Problem of Delinquency 3
The Issue of Causality 6
What Is a Theory? 8
Verification of Theories 9
The Plan of This Book 10
2. The Classical School: Issues of Choice and Reasoning 15
Historical Overview 15
Rational Choice Theory 20
Summary 22
3. Biological and Biosocial Explanations 27
Historical Overview 27
Generic Assumptions 27
Somatotypes and Delinquency 28
Inheritance and Delinquency 34
Emerging Trends in Biological Explanations of Delinquency 43
Summary 53
4. Psychological Theories 61
Historical Overview 61
Generic Assumptions 62
Intelligence and Delinquency 63
The Psychiatric-Psychoanalytic Approach 70
General Personality Characteristics 75
Summary 89

5. Social Disorganization and Anomie 99
Historical Overview 99
Generic Assumptions 100
Social Disorganization 101
Anomie and Delinquency: Discontinuities in Society 120
Summary 131
6. Lower-Class-Based Theories of Delinquency 141
Historical Overview and Generic Assumptions 141
Cohen and the Middle-Class Measuring Rod 143
Cloward and Ohlin’s Theory of Differential Opportunity
Structure 151
Miller’s Theory of Lower-Class Culture and Delinquency 162
Summary 169
7. Interpersonal and Situational Explanations 181
Historical Overview 181
Generic Assumptions 182
Differential Association 183
Drift and Delinquency 196
Summary 202
8. Control Theories 209
Historical Overview 209
Generic Assumptions 210
Personal Controls 212
Social Controls—The Social Bond 219
A General Theory of Crime 247
Summary 251
9. Labeling Theory 259
Historical Overview 259
Generic Assumptions 260
Summary 275
10. The Radical Theory of Delinquency 283
Historical Overview 283
Beyond “Radical” Theory 295
Summary 297xcontents

11. Female Delinquency 305
Historical Overview 305
Basic Biological and Psychological Approaches 306
Gender Roles and Delinquency 309
Women’s Emancipation 311
Evaluation 313
Power-Control Theory 323
Feminist Explanations of Female Delinquency 330
Summary 334
12. Delinquency Theory: An Integrative Approach 345
Integrated Theories: Some Considerations and a
Proposed Model 345
Author Index 371
Subject Index 383contents xi

This page intentionally left blank

Theories of Delinquency

This page intentionally left blank

1
Explanations
of Delinquency
3The Problem of Delinquency
Practically no day passes without the appearance of some news item
carrying a story of a crime committed by youth. Figures vary from yearto year, but generally, rates of delinquency in the United States were
higher in the late 1980s and early 1990s than they were a generation ago,
particularly for violent offenses (Lundman, 1993:8–15). Although rates
of delinquency in the United States, in terms of arrests and referrals tojuvenile court, have been declining since the mid- 1990s, the rates of de-
linquency are still higher than they were in the 1980s (Sickmund, 1997;
Snyder, 1997), delinquency is still a societal concern, and rates could go
up again, with economic downturns and social problems affecting youth.
Criminal behavior of juveniles involves all types of activity, and it is com-mitted by youth from all backgrounds. In addition to criminal behavior,
juveniles can commit illegal acts that apply only to juveniles. These “crimes”
are called status offenses, because they apply only to the status of youth.
Collectively, illegal acts, whether criminal or status, which are com-
mitted by youth under the age of 18 are called delinquent behaviors,
and the youth committing them are referred to as juvenile delinquents.This terminology officially developed in 1899, when the first code of
juvenile delinquency was enacted in Chicago, Illinois.
The problem of juvenile “crime,” however, has existed for hun-
dreds of years. Indeed, as Wiley Sanders indicates, juvenile offenders

4 theories of delinquency
have been noted in many of the written records of human history ( 1970).
Numerous editorials, commission reports, and governmental statistics
reveal that juvenile crime, including that of youth gangs, not only ex-
isted but was a source of concern to the citizens of Europe and America
in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Even early Anglo-Saxonlaws contained provisions for the punishment of child offenders (Sanders,
1970).
In essence, adults have always been concerned about the miscre-
ant behavior of their youth. Perhaps this worry and attention derivefrom the perception that a nation’s future rests on the development of
its youth. Perhaps the concern over youthful deviance stems from thethought (however accurate) that today’s delinquent is tomorrow’s crimi-
nal, if nothing is done to change the antisocial behavior of the youth.
Be that as it may, when youngsters are known to have been involvedin criminal activity, people become concerned. Why did they do it?
What should we do with them? These are the questions adults ask,
and the demand for answers seems to become stronger with each newgeneration of adults.
Proposals for preventing and diminishing delinquency, as well as
controlling and punishing the young perpetrators, have assumed so manydifferent forms that any casual reader of the literature can be excused
for being totally confused and bewildered. But essentially the ques-
tion of causation is paramount. In the Middle Ages, and into the nine-teenth century, children and adults were lumped together as one group,
and whatever explained the misbehavior of older criminals was equally
applicable to younger ones. Such was the case with demonology, andit was equally true of the first systematic criminology of the modern
era,known as the classical position (Inciardi, 1978; Empey, 1982; Vold
and Bernard, 1986).
Demonology assumes that criminal and delinquent behavior is
caused by demonic possession. While this view of criminality can be
traced to primitive societies, it still maintains some popularity todayamong laypersons. A recent popular example of demon possession of a
child is presented in the novel The Exorcist.
The Classical School in criminology argues that people, adults and
children, act according to free will, rationally exercised, in the pursuitof happiness and the minimization of pain. According to some of the

explanations of delinquency 5
early proponents of this thought, such as Cesare Beccaria, and to some
extent his English utilitarian follower, Jeremy Bentham, all persons,including children, are thought to weigh the costs and benefits of their
proposed actions before they embark on them, and all persons, it is
assumed, possess the ability to do so (see Chapter 2).
Although the American legal system is based on the notions of
free will and individual responsibility, it has been recognized for sometime that not all individuals have the same ability to reason and weighthe outcome of their behavior; witness, for example, the mentally ill
and children (including adolescents). For this reason, juveniles are
thought to be less responsible than adults for their behavior, and anentire system of juvenile justice, from separate court proceedings to
separate confinement facilities, has been established for them over the
past150 years. Of course, this separate system of handling juvenile of-
fenders does not always result in protective and treatment-oriented prac-
tices (Murphy, 1974; Wooden, 1976; Ayers, 1997). In addition, juvenile
court procedures are assuming many of the characteristics of adult courts
in response to Supreme Court decisions since the 1960s (Shoemaker,
1988). Whatever changes may have been introduced, the juvenile is
still considered by many to be less responsible than the adult, and thusin need of different procedures for adjudication and different policies
that emphasize prevention and treatment over punishment.
Along with the assumption that young delinquents need special
treatment, the idea has developed that explanations of crime among
juveniles must be applied specifically to experiences common to youth.
Particularly associated with this thought is what came to be known asthe Positive School of criminology initiated in the latter half of the
nineteenth century (Radzinowicz, 1966). Although some thinkers
equate the Positive School with nineteenth-century studies of the crimi-
nal personality, the name positive can be applied to any theory that
systematically and, in varying degrees, empirically analyzes the causes
of crime and delinquency and concludes that personal or social andenvironmental factors determine criminal behavior. As such, many mod-
ern theories of delinquency may be called positivistic.
Contributions to an understanding of crime and delinquency from
a positivist approach have come from a variety of disciplines, most nota-
bly biology, psychology, and sociology. While not all positivist theories

6 theories of delinquency
distinguish juveniles from adults, many do. Some specify several stages of
development, from infancy to old age, with accompanying explanations
of crime and deviance for each growth period (the psychoanalytic ap-
proach, for example). Others focus on pressures, uniquely from an ado-lescent point of view (such as the middle-class measuring rod theory
proposed by Albert Cohen, which is discussed in Chapter 6).
It is the many and varied theories of delinquency, particularly those
stemming from the positivist tradition, that create much of the confu-sion concerning the causes of delinquency. The object of this book is
to present the major theories of delinquency to the reader in a mannerthat is systematic and comparative. Before discussing more fully what
will be included in this book, however, a few comments concerning
the concepts of causality and theory are in order.
The Issue of Causality
The Positive School is associated with determinism, that is, the idea
that criminal behavior is determined, or caused, by something(Radzinowicz, 1966). It is the identification of that “thing,” or set of
things, that has elevated the question of causation to a central positionin the analysis of crime and delinquency.
A strict interpretation of causality would argue that one phenom-
enon (the cause) always precedes the result, or the effect, and that theeffect never occurs without the previous existence of the cause(MacIver, 1942). For example, broken homes would be considered a
cause of delinquency if broken homes always led to delinquency andif all delinquents came from broken homes. In actuality, such an inter-pretation of causality would eliminate the “causal” explanations of a
variety of phenomena, both natural and social. This view of causation
is particularly inappropriate for the development of concepts and theo-ries in the social sciences because of the existence of multiple causes,
or factors, in human behavior (MacIver, 1942; Hirschi and Selvin, 1978;
Gibbons and Krohn, 1986).
In the development of causal explanations of delinquency, the usual
procedure is to identify contributory factors, or variables, that are
associated with delinquency. In identifying these factors, however, some

explanations of delinquency 7
attention must be paid to a minimal set of criteria for the development
of causal explanations: ( 1) there must be an association or connection
between the contributory or causal variable and delinquency; ( 2) the
connection must be temporally established such that the causal factoris known to occur before the effect, that is, delinquency; and ( 3) the
original connection between delinquency and the causal variable mustnot disappear when the influences of other variables, causally locatedprior to the causal variable, are considered (Hirschi and Selvin, 1978).
Sometimes, correlational data are interpreted in deterministic terms.
For example, broken homes are often described as a cause of delin-quency because broken homes and delinquency are correlated with
one another (that is, delinquents often come from broken homes). The
temporal order of this association must be established, however, be-fore causation can be determined. If all we knew was that broken homes
and delinquency were correlated, we might just as easily reason that
delinquency causes broken homes (through parental conflicts over what
to do with a troublesome child) or that coming from a broken home
causes delinquency (perhaps because trouble and conflict or lack of
supervision in the home create problems for a child, which are mani-fested in the form of illegal behavior).
Even when it has been established that two variables are not only
connected, but that one variable precedes another in a time sequence,the preceding variable may not be causal. It could be that a third vari-
able, preceding both of the others, is the real causal agent. When this
occurs, it is assumed that the originally identified association betweentwo variables is spurious , that is, misleading or false. For example, if a re-
lationship has been established between delinquency and poor grades inschool, the relationship may not be a causal one. Perhaps conflicts in thehome are contributing to both poor school performance and delinquent
behavior. If family conflicts were then introduced into the analysis, the
original association between grades and delinquency would disappear,and we would then be able to call that relationship spurious.
In reading the following chapters of this book, the student should
be aware of these points. The theories to be discussed are attempts toexplain delinquency. While no one theory is able to provide thecausal
answer, some appear to be stronger than others in consideration of thecriteria just discussed.

8 theories of delinquency
What Is a Theory?
The word “theory” means many things to different people. To the lay-
person, a theory often suggests a wild speculation, or set of speculations,
an unproved or perhaps false assumption, or even a fact concerning anevent or a type of behavior, based on little, if any, actual data. To some
scientists, or philosophers of science, a theory consists of a set of de-
scriptions or classification schemes concerning a particular phenomenon(some would call such schemes “taxonomies”; Zetterberg, 1963). To
others, a theory is a systematic collection of concepts and statementspurporting to explain events or behavior (Timasheff, 1957). Blalock ( 1969)
views theories of this sort as deductive theories, which consist of inter-
related propositions. These propositions are described as axioms, or state-
ments of truth, and theorems, which “are derived by reasoning, or deduced , from
the axioms” (p. 10). Homans takes a similar approach by arguing that
theories are essentially deductive explanations of events, and explana-tions are attempts to test and understand specific parts or sequences ofthe larger phenomenon, which are organized as propositions ( 1967:
22–27 ). Other students feel that theories should not only be able to
explain phenomena on an abstract level but also should be applicable topractical, everyday situations. In other words, a significant feature of a
theory is its ability to explain things for the layperson who may wish to
use the theory in an applied setting (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Some theo-
ries concern the activities of individuals, and attempt to explain why
individuals commit acts of delinquency. These kinds of theories are of-
ten called microtheories. Other theories deal with the larger social and cul-
tural context in which humans act, and address the issue of why rates of
delinquency are higher in some settings, or among some collections of
people, than in others. These theories are called macrotheories (Williams
and McShane, 1994:8–9 ; see also, Akers, 1994:4–5 ; Gibbons, 1994: 8–11).
Still other theoretical perspectives focus on the explanations of why lawsand norms are established, and in what manner these prescriptions andproscriptions for behavior are enforced (Akers, 1994:3 ).
Whatever the definition, the social scientist sees a theory, in one
way or another, as an attempt to make sense out of observations (Akers,1994:2 ; Curran and Renzetti, 1994:2 ; Gibbons, 1994:6–7 ). It is in this
general sense that the word “theory” will be used in this work. Thus,

explanations of delinquency 9
a view of delinquency will be recognized as a theory if it attempts to
explain or understand delinquency, regardless of the level of its causal
assumptions and irrespective of the sophistication of its concepts and
propositions. It is tempting to adopt a strict interpretation of theory,but to do so would eliminate some useful and interesting approaches
to an understanding of delinquency. At one time or another, each of
the explanations presented in this book has been referred to as a theory,and it is for this context that the term has been chosen.
1
Verification of Theories
The utility of any theory lies in its validity. Can it be verified? Is it true?
Will it predict what will be found in groups not yet observed and stud-
ied? Theories are analyzed and verified in a variety of ways. Most of-
ten, they are verified by gathering data designed to test the validity oftheir concepts and propositions. This way of testing a theory may be
referred to as the empirical method (Akers, 1994:6–12 ). Validity refers
to the extent to which a theory is true (valid). In testing theories, or
theoretical propositions, the researcher is often concerned with the
validity of the questions and procedures used in the study. That is, do
they truly measure what they are purported to measure? For example,do IQ tests actually measure native intelligence, or are they, in part,
gauging learned behavior and responsive abilities? A goal of scientific
disciplines is to continually test their theories and refine their concepts.To ignore a theoretical explanation of delinquency, or any other type
of behavior, because it is unsophisticated or untested would be deny-
ing the integrity of the scientific process and foreclosing, perhaps pre-maturely, what might eventually become a meaningful interpretation
of delinquency.
Included in the empirical method of evaluating theories of delin-
quency is the implementation of a theory’s assumptions in preventionor treatment programs. A major concern in this approach to the
evaluation of a theory is the gap that can develop among particular ques-tions concerning what the theory proposes, how a practitioner inter-
prets the theory, and how the major elements of the theory are
implemented (see, for example, Lilly et al., 1995). While these problems

10 theories of delinquency
occur in the testing of theories in all disciplines, they are pronounced
in the social sciences. The outcomes of practical tests of a theory canbe highly affected by the practitioner’s understanding of the theory as
well as the practitioner’s commitment to its success (or failure). What
are the chances of a theory being designated successful in reducingdelinquency if the practitioner does not believe in the validity of the
theory in the first place? Such issues as these make it impractical to
evaluate theories of behavior on the basis of their ability to effectchanges in behavior in a purposeful manner.
2
Another method of testing theories is to examine their logical con-
sistency and conceptual clarity. However, some theories are wordedso abstractly or with such conceptual unclarity that it is difficult to test
them empirically. For instance, theories which argue that behavior is
influenced by cultural norms and values are difficult to test with ex-perimental or survey data because the central concepts of the theories
are so far removed from day-to-day behavior that it is hard to connect
behavior specifically with the concepts. Similarly, psychoanalytical theo-ries which stress unconscious motives for behavior are difficult to test
because such motivations are outside the scope of normal observation.
These kinds of theories are better evaluated primarily according to theirinternal logic and consistency rather than their empirical accuracy. These
are what McCord describes as “soft theories” ( 1989:132–133 ).
The Plan of This Book
The purpose of this book is to present the student with a systematic
discussion of the dominant explanations of delinquency. It is not the
intention of the author to develop a new theory of delinquency but,instead, to explain the existing theories in a consistent, organized man-
ner. It is hoped that this procedure will enable the reader not only to
obtain an understanding of each theory, but also to be able to com-pare and contrast these explanations.
It is recognized from the beginning that no single theory will ever
be able to explain all types of delinquency. The theories presented areassessed according to their general empirical and logical adequacy. In
some cases, such as with theories of lower-class and female delinquency,

explanations of delinquency 11
the evaluation is based on the ability of the theory to explain the spe-
cific form of delinquency addressed. The more usual procedure, how-ever, is to discuss each theory in relationship to delinquent behavior in
general.
The format of the book is the same in most chapters. First, a brief
historical overview of the theory, or set of theories, is presented. Next,the basic assumptions of these theories are examined.
3 These items are
followed by discussions of specific theories within the general set, in-
cluding specific assumptions, key concepts, a general discussion, and
an evaluation. Each chapter concludes with a summary and compara-
tive overview. Exceptions to this format occur in the chapters on fe-male delinquency and integrative theory.
This book is not intended to “sell” anyone on the merits of any
particular theory, although comparative evaluations will point to theapparent efficacy of one theory over another. Despite the support re-
ceived from scholarly training or the concentration of experts favoring
particular causes of delinquency, students must make up their own mindson explanatory approaches but should reach conclusions based on in-
formation and not ignorance, with an open mind and not a rigid one,
and free from precommitments and prejudices. If the contents of thisbook help students in formulating a considered and thoughtful opin-
ion concerning the etiology of delinquency, its purpose will have been
fulfilled.
Notes
1. Only in one instance, the discussion of labeling, can it be argued that it is
not a theory under consideration (because there is no causal explanation), but
a perspective. This problem is considered later.
2. The purpose of this book is to discuss most of the major explanations
of delinquency. Of course, this decision forces one to select from the rangeof potential entries those which are considered representative. In so doing,some theories may be omitted which might be included by other authors.Learning theories of criminality, for example, are not fully covered in thisvolume. To some extent this interpretation of behavior is addressed in thediscussion of differential association theory in Chapter 7. Other versions of
learning theories, such as those informed by behavioral psychology, arenot included, primarily because the manner in which these theories are used

12 theories of delinquency
focuses on the treatment, or modification, of delinquent behavior. While
the subject of treatment is certainly important, the parameters of this bookexclude a detailed examination of treatment or rehabilitation programs.Those interested in such topics may wish to consult other books, such asLundman ( 1993) and Morris and Braukmann (1987 :especially Chapters 2,
5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15 , and 18).
3. The assumptions listed for each theory cover the causal connections of
delin-quency. They at times include assumptions of basic human nature (see,for example, Stevenson, 1974) and of the social order, but the focus remains on
the theoretical explanation of delinquent conduct.
References
Akers, Ronald L., 1994, Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evalua-
tion. Los Angeles: Roxbury.
Ayers, William, 1997, A Kind and Just Parent. Boston: Beacon.
Blalock, Hubert M., Jr., 1969, Theory Construction: From Verbal to Math-
ematical Formulations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Curran, Daniel J. and Claire M. Renzetti, 1994, Theories of Crime. Needham
Heights, Mass.: Allyn & Bacon.
Empey, Lamar T., 1982, American Delinquency, second edition. Homewood,
Ill.: Dorsey.
Gibbons, Don C., 1994, Talking about Crime and Criminals: Problems and
Issues in Theory Development in Criminology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall.
Gibbons, Don C. and Marvin D. Krohn, 1986, Delinquent Behavior, fourth
edition. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss, 1967, The Discovery of Grounded
Theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Hirschi, Travis and Hanan C. Selvin, 1978, “False Criteria of Causality.”
Pp.219–232 in Leonard D. Savitz and Norman Johnston (eds.), Crime in
Society. New York: Wiley.
Homans, George C., 1967, The Nature of Social Science. New York: Harcourt,
Brace, and World.
Inciardi, James A., 1978, Reflections on Crime. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Lilly, J. Robert, Francis T. Cullen, and Richard A. Ball, 1995, Criminological Theory:
Context and Consequences, second edition. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Lundman, Richard J., 1993, Prevention and Control of Juvenile Delinquency,
second edition. New York: Oxford University Press.

explanations of delinquency 13
MacIver, R. M., 1942, Social Causation. New York: Ginn and Company.
McCord, Joan, 1989, “Theory, Pseudotheory, and Metatheory.” Pp. 127–145
in William S. Laufer and Freda Adler (eds.), Advances in Criminological
Theory. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.
Morris, Edward K. and Curtis J. Braukmann (eds.), 1987, Behavioral Ap-
proaches to Crime and Delinquency: A Handbook of Application, Research,and Concepts. New York: Plenum.
Murphy, Patrick T., 1974, Our Kindly Parent—The State. New York: Viking.
Radzinowicz, Leon, 1966, Ideology and Crime. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Sanders, Wiley B. (ed.), 1970, Juvenile Offenders for a Thousand Years. Chapel
Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press.
Shoemaker, Donald J., 1988, “The Duality of Juvenile Justice in the United
States: History, Trends, and Prospects.” Sociological Spectrum 8:1–17 .
Sickmund, Melissa, 1997, “Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1995.” OJJDP Juve-
nile Justice Bulletin November: 1–12.
Snyder, Howard N., 1997, “Juvenile Arrests, 1996.” OJJDP Juvenile Justice
Bulletin November: 1–12.
Stevenson, Leslie, 1974, Seven Theories of Human Nature. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Timasheff, Nicholas S., 1957, Sociological Theory, revised edition. New York:
Random House.
Vold, George B. and Thomas J. Bernard, 1986. Theoretical Criminology, third
edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Williams, Frank P., III and Marilyn D. McShane, 1994, Criminological Theory,
second edition. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Wooden, Kenneth, 1976, Weeping in the Playtime of Others. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Zetterberg, Hans L., 1963, On Theory and Verification in Sociology, revised
edition. Totowa, N.J.: Bedminster Press.

This page intentionally left blank

issues of choice and reasoning 15
15Historical Overview
As mentioned in Chapter 1, the foundation of American jurisprudence
is the individual culpability of offenders. Criminal culpability typically
rests on the issue of reasoning and criminal intent. That is, legal evi-dence is based on the degree to which a person is considered to have
committed an act, and the degree to which the individual is consid-
ered to have committed the act voluntarily, or of free volition.
Many scholars maintain that the legal constructs of free will and
reasoning capacity are products of a school of thought named the Clas-sical School (Vold and Bernard, 1986:Chapter 2). The Classical School
is characterized by a belief in the influence of free will on the commis-
sion of behavior, as well as the use of punishment to deter criminality,
but just enough punishment to outweigh the benefits of committingcrime. Contemporary systems of criminal justice have been modified
to include a variety of “mitigating” circumstances which are thought
to reduce the impact of “free will” on behavior.
One of the more common mitigators of criminal responsibility is a
person’s age, and the corresponding connection between reasoningcapability and age. In the United States, historical accounts maintainthat beginning in the early nineteenth century, public perceptions of
young offenders began to accept the notion of reduced criminal
responsibility because of age (Platt, 1977; Krisberg and Austin, 1978).2
The Classical School:
Issues of Choice
and Reasoning

16 theories of delinquency
Sanders ( 1970) demonstrates that age qualifications for punishment were
recognized in the laws of the colonies. Specific reform efforts, and in-
stitutional structures which focused on the youthful offender, beganto appear in the United States during the first third of the nineteenth
century. Throughout the twentieth century, a number of legal and social
reforms ultimately led to the development of a separate court processfor juveniles, first represented in Chicago, Illinois in 1899 (Platt, 1977).
However, these reform efforts were not uniformly accepted by all, andeven for juveniles, there is the assumption that free will is the basiccause of behavior.
Assumptions In strictest form, the Classical School argues that all
people act according to the exercise of free will and reasoning.
Individuals act, furthermore, in order to accomplish some desired goal.
Variations of this theme posit that humans behave according to rationalconsiderations of the consequences of their acts, both those results
which are beneficial and those which are harmful.
key concepts
Free Will Within the concept of classical theory, free will represents
individual responsibility for behavior. This does not mean that a per-
son always accepts responsibility for actions. Rather, it means that so-ciety holds a person accountable for behavior because this activity is
assumed to be the result of conscious, calculating thought.
Rational Choice This concept refers to the method of reaching a deci-
sion to commit behavior. It refers to the idea that people act according
to a reasoned, logical set of planned calculations (see, for example,
Cornish and Clarke, 1986). This choice is based on awareness of po-
tential consequences, positive and negative, of the behavior.
Discussion The person most often identified with the Classical
School is Cesare Beccaria, who outlined his views in a book entitled
On Crimes and Punishments (1963; originally published in 1764). According
to Beccaria, people do what they do because they derive pleasure from
their acts, and they voluntarily choose to commit them. In this manner,
criminal activity is motivated by the same principles as noncriminal
behavior, namely, the gratification of pleasure and the avoidance of pain.

issues of choice and reasoning 17
The difference between the two is that the law violator chooses to
circumvent laws and rules to obtain desired goals, while the law abider
stays within the bounds of legal limits to achieve objectives. Thisposition assumes that all people have the same opportunities to exercise
choices in their lives. One of the important characteristics of the Classical
School is the notion that all people possess the ability to reason and toact on their own volition.
Of course, contemporary social science challenges this
conceptualization. While people may exercise reason and choice inpursuing their desires and objectives, these patterns of thought and
action are influenced by a host of environmental and individual fac-
tors which have been the focus of attention among students of hu-man behavior and society for decades. For example, people from
different social status or social class backgrounds may see the avail-
ability of legitimate opportunities from very different perspectives(Vold and Bernard, 1986:29). The same may be said of gender differ-
ences in society, as well as many other human and social characteris-tics. Furthermore, this perspective fails to provide meaningfulinterpretations of why some people choose an illegal path to success,happiness, or whatever else they may be seeking, while others opt
for the conformist way, except to contend that this is the way people
elect to lead their lives. Moreover, this philosophy does not help tounderstand why people choose alternating methods of achieving their
goals, some legal, some not.
In fairness to Beccaria and his treatise on crimes and punishment,
these questions and issues were not foremost in his presentation ofarguments. Rather, Beccaria argued that the goal of his essay was to
present a plan of jurisprudence which would be fair and effective incontrolling crime (Martin et al., 1990:6–15). Thus, we are told that
capital punishment is not an effective means for instilling respect forthe law in people and preventing crime among the general popu-lation, because it is excessive, cruel, and barbaric (Beccaria,
1963 :45–52). Throughout this essay, the arguments and comments
focus on the proper response to criminality, with an eye toward pro-
ducing a fair and just system of punishment which would lead to the
prevention of future crime among the populace, rather than to disre-
spect for those charged with enforcing the law, as well as the laws

18 theories of delinquency
which are being protected. A more complete evaluation of this theory
of criminal motivation would encompass the wide range of correc-
tional philosophy which has developed in response to these issues(Martin et al., 1990:16–18). However, the purpose of this book is to
present theoretical arguments for the causes of delinquency, not anevaluation of various correctional practices designed to reduce or elimi-nate crime and delinquent conduct. Consequently, the following
evaluation of the Classical School is based on the ideas of this theory
which concern the motivations for committing crime, and whetherthese ideas hold merit when applied to juveniles.
Evaluation Strict applications of Beccaria’s legislative principles,
such as the French Penal Code of 1791, have not met with much success
(Vold and Bernard, 1986:25). One reason for the inability to hold all
people accountable for their actions is the quite human condition of
complexity and variability in motivation. Even if the principle of behaving
to achieve pleasurable consequences, and to avoid pain, were perfectly
valid, there would be the issue of how much and what kinds of pleasureand pain were needed in order to motivate people. Recognition ofthese difficulties led to revisions of penal codes based on Beccaria’s
ideas, revisions which incorporated elements of mitigating circumstances
and other conditions which might reduce the capacity of people toreason and thus be held fully accountable for their actions. One of the
earliest proponents of this view of behavior was Jeremy Bentham, who
enunciated his basic philosophy of crime and punishment in a bookentitled An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1948;
originally published in 1789). Bentham is often included as a member
of the Classical School, because he believed in the essential freedomof people to chart the course of their actions. In addition, Bentham
subscribed to the philosophy that the primary motivation in human
behavior is based on pleasure and pain (Bentham, 1948:1). However,
Bentham also believed in the principle of utility , by which he meant
that the ultimate objective in legislation was to achieve the greatesthappiness for the community, or as many members of society as possible(pp.1–3). This principle is the crux of Bentham’s position, for it leads
to a consideration of a large number of factors and circumstancesconcerning crime and its motivation, which a strict classical view cannot

issues of choice and reasoning 19
entertain. For these reasons, Bentham is more properly classified as a
“neoclassical” theorist. The Neoclassical School is characterized by the
core belief that people operate according to free will and pleasure-pain, but these principles are modified according to mitigating and
extenuating circumstances of a wide range (Vold and Bernard, 1986:
26–27; Curran and Renzetti, 1994:15).
Because of these considerations, the contemporary criminal jus-
tice system in America and other Western nations is more properly
associated with the Neoclassical School. This association extends to thesystem of juvenile justice as well. Basically, the very existence of a separate
system of handling juvenile offenders, apart from adult criminals, is a
reflection of a neoclassical view that free will is mitigated by extenuat-ing circumstances, namely, a person’s age. However, societal acceptance
of the idea of reduced punishment for juveniles based on age is nei-
ther automatic nor uniform (Champion, 1992:4–28). Not only was this
lack of agreement evident in the earlier stages of the development of
juvenile justice concepts (Platt, 1977 ), but it exists in contemporary times,
probably as strongly as ever.
While the juvenile justice system is based on treatment, rehabilita-
tion, prevention, and similar ideas of human correction, efforts con-tinue to be made which would provide punishment to juvenile
offenders, even to the extent of providing that juveniles be processedas adults. Most jurisdictions, for example, allow for the transfer of ju-
venile cases to the adult system, where the juvenile would be then
“treated” as an adult (Champion, 1992:210–244). In some states, such
as Washington, there have developed strict interpretations of the pen-
alties which should be assessed for the commission of specific offenses,
in connection with specific circumstances. The express intent of thislegislation, moreover, is based on the assumption that juveniles should
be held “accountable” for their acts (Siegel and Senna, 1988:484–485).
Thus, while it may be argued that a separate system of juvenile justice
recognizes limitations on the influence of free will relative to one’s age,
court and legislative decisions often work against this philosophy by
establishing laws and policies which are based on the assumption thatyoung people should be held accountable for their behavior.
Within the field of social science and theoretical positions on the
nature of human action, there also exists considerable argument and

20 theories of delinquency
debate concerning the impact of free will on behavior. Nearly all the
theoretical positions discussed in the remainder of this volume are based
on the assumption that, at the very least, people act according to theinteraction between free will and a host of factors which operate to
constrain the extent to which action is truly “free.” These forces are
often conceptualized as “determining” factors, and at times it mightseem these conditions all but eliminate the option of choice in human
behavior.
Rational Choice Theory
In the past few years, an explanation of criminality has emerged which
is often referred to as “rational choice theory” (Clarke and Cornish,
1985; Cornish and Clarke, 1986 ). Basically, this conception of behavior
is a modified version of classical theory, in that it suggests that criminal
behavior is predicated on the use of calculations, reasoning, and “ra-
tional” considerations of choices. In this manner, the theory is similarto the ideas of economists such as Becker ( 1968), who advocate an
economic, calculative approach to the understanding of crime. Ratio-
nal choices, furthermore, are based on the principle of self-interest
(Cornish and Clarke, 1986:1), or what others might refer to as the plea-
sure-pain principle. Unlike the early classical theorists such as Beccaria,
however, the contemporary, “rational choice” view is based largely on,
and encourages, empirical investigations into the motives of behaviorand the influence of rationality on human actions.
Most of the contemporary literature on rational choice theory ad-
dresses the criminal activity of adults. While many attempts to test thisperspective report results favorable to its basic assumptions (Cornish
and Clarke, 1986), there are exceptions. For example, Piliavin et al. ( 1986)
report data on the connection between self-reported crime, perceived
opportunities for committing crime, and the perceived risks of arrest
and/or imprisonment for committing crime among samples of previ-
ously incarcerated adult offenders, known adult drug users, and ado-lescent school dropouts. Their analysis failed to support any deterrent
effect of perceived punishment on criminal behavior. However,
perceived criminal opportunities were related to self-reported crime,

issues of choice and reasoning 21
especially among adult offenders (pp. 111–117). These findings were
particularly relevant for the sample of adult offenders. According to
this study, therefore, the assumptions of rational choice theory andclassical theory in general, are too simplistic. People may be more af-
fected by perceptions of opportunity for committing crimes than by
the prospects of being caught and punished for criminal behavior.
Perceptions of opportunities and risks, furthermore, may be influ-
enced by experiences with committing crime and/or with being pun-ished for crime. Since the results discussed above applied more to adultoffenders who had previously been in jail or prison than to adoles-
cents, it may be that perceptions of risks and opportunities relative to
crime are more accurate for adult offenders than for adolescents. Also,as Piliavin et al. suggest, people may be sensitive to major shifts in per-
ception, such as a certainty that criminal opportunity exists or that ar-
rest for criminal behavior is imminent, but not to more remotepossibilities ( 1986:115).
These considerations would seem to place even more importance
on the impact of age as a conditioning factor for a rational perspectiveon the understanding of delinquency. If calculations and reasoning areaffected by experiences, then it is reasonable to assume these processes
are less developed among juveniles than among adults (Paternoster, 1989 ),
which, again, is the basis for according differential corrective responses
to delinquent conduct as opposed to adult criminality.
Some discussions of rational choice theory link the perspective with
learning theory, or differential association theory (Akers, 1990; Clarke
and Felson, 1993). Paternoster ( 1989) provides some empirical evidence
on the relative effects of deterrence/rational choice variables, comparedto social and attitudinal factors, on “common” forms of delinquency.Basically, Paternoster concludes that rational choice and deterrence
factors play at best an inconsistent role in the “decision” to commit
relatively minor acts of delinquency for the first time, particularly alco-hol use and minor theft, as well as for subsequent decision-making,
including the notion of repeating delinquent acts, or to stop offend-
ing (pp. 22–38).
The degree to which juveniles rationally consider the consequences
of their delinquent acts remains a matter of investigation and discus-sion. Some examinations of longitudinal studies of delinquency find

22 theories of delinquency
support for the deterrent value of punishment on juveniles, especially
those who are more involved in delinquency, or are at “higher risk” to
commit delinquent acts. These findings cast some doubt on theories,such as the general theory of crime (see Chapter 8), which propose
that criminals and delinquents have strong predispositions to delin-quency. In addition, these findings lead to continued debate on theissue of the ability of juveniles to weigh and calculate the results of
their actions, and to policy implications associated with this debate
(Wright et al., 2004; Matsueda et al., 2006).
Summary
It may be difficult to assess the calculative nature of human behavior
with any more precision than is currently evident in the literature. Theseattempts often utilize information gathered from individuals after the
act has been committed, and sometimes years after the event has oc-curred. This problem alone should not be sufficient to warrant nofurther study of a classical, rational choice, or any other similar kind ofapproach to human behavior. Many attempts to test or examine inter-
pretive explanations of criminal or delinquent behavior incorporate post
hoc methods which involve recollections or imputations of behavior
well after the acts have occurred.
The issue is not as absolute as some positions may imply. Of
course, humans act on the basis of reasoning and calculation. Just ascertainly, however, people behave in response to habits, suggestions
from others in their lives, cultural norms and values, and other envi-
ronmental stimuli (Harding, 1993). Some refer to this situation as “con-
ditional free will” (Fishbein, 1990:30) or “degree determinism” (Denno,
1988:618,661–662). These factors and conditions constitute the sub-
ject matter of the remainder of this book. People make mistakes injudgment, interpretations of events, assessments of situations, and so
on. Some attribute these mistakes to lack of self-control, and con-
tend that criminal behavior occurs early in life and is maintainedthroughout life (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). Others (Sampson and
Laub, 1992,1993) contend that choices made early in life are often
due to the interaction between personal and environmental influences,

issues of choice and reasoning 23
but that these choices influence other decisions people make through-
out their lives, including those which affect social and occupational
selections (as well as the reactions of others to these decisions). InSampson and Laub’s view, however, people can also change in their
perceptions and views concerning how they should behave, and in
their decision making relative to these changes. These fluctuationsoccur among young people as well as with adults.
It should not be surprising, therefore, to find scholars openly
divided about the importance of “free will” versus determinism onthe subject of human behavior, for, in fact, humans behave ratio-
nally and impulsively, but not robotically. None of the theories to
be discussed in the following chapters should be taken as the ulti-mate explanation of delinquent behavior. This point of view should
become increasingly clear as the reader moves through this book.
The presentation concerning “integrated” theories, in the last chap-ter, attempts to reinforce this position. A reasonable compromise
position on this issue is to view human behavior, deviant or con-
formist, as the result of the exercise of choice within given situa-tions. We may never be able to control the human will; we maynever want to reach this level of control. However, we can reason-
ably expect to reach a clearer understanding of circumstances and
situations that are thought to influence delinquent behavior, whichis the primary goal of this book.
References
Akers, Ronald L., 1990, “Rational Choice, Deterrence and Social Learning in
Criminology: The Path Not Taken.” Journal of Criminal Law and Crimi-
nology 81:653–676.
Beccaria, Cesare, 1963, On Crimes and Punishments, translated by Henry
Paolucci. New York: Bobbs-Merrill. Originally published in 1764.
Becker, Gary S., 1968, “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach.”
Journal of Political Economy 76:169–217.
Bentham, Jeremy, 1948, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and
Legislation. New York: Hafner. Originally published in 1789.
Champion, Dean J., 1992, The Juvenile Justice System. New York: Macmillan.
Clarke, Ronald V. and Derek B. Cornish, 1985, “Modeling Offenders’ Deci-
sions: A Framework for Research and Policy.” Pp. 147–185 in Michael

24 theories of delinquency
Tonry and Norval Morris (eds.), Crime and Justice, Vol. 6. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Clarke, Ronald V. and Marcus Felson (eds.), 1993, Routine Activity and
Rational Choice. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction.
Cornish, Derek B. and Ronald V. Clarke, 1986, The Reasoning Criminal.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Curran, Daniel J. and Claire M. Renzetti, 1994, Theories of Crime. Needham
Heights, Mass.: Allyn & Bacon.
Denno, Deborah W. 1988, “Human Biology and Criminal Responsibility:
Free Will or Free Ride?” Pennsylvania Law Review, 137:615–671.
Fishbein, Diana H., 1990, “Biological Perspectives in Criminology.” Crimi-
nology 28:27–72.
Gottfredson, Michael R. and Travis Hirschi, 1990, A General Theory of
Crime. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Harding, Richard W., 1993, “Gun Use in Crime, Rational Choice, and Social
Learning Theory.” Pp. 85–102 in Ronald V. Clarke and Marcus Felson
(eds.), q.v.
Krisberg, Barry and James Austin (eds.), 1978, The Children of Ishmael: Critical
Perspectives on Juvenile Justice. Palo Alto, Calif.: Mayfield.
Martin, Randy, Robert J. Mutchnick, and W. Timothy Austin (eds.), 1990,
Criminological Thought. New York: Macmillan.
Matsueda, Ross L., Derek A. Kraeger, and David Huizinga, 2006, “Deterring
Delinquents: A Rational Choice Model of Theft and Violence.” American
Sociological Review 71:95–122.
Paternoster, Raymond, 1989, “Decisions to Participate in and Desist from
Four Types of Common Delinquency: Deterrence and the Rational ChoicePerspective.” Law & Society Review, 23:7–40.
Piliavin, Irving, Rosemary Gartner, Craig Thornton, and Ross L. Matsueda,
1986, “Crime, Deterrence, and Rational Choice.” American Sociological
Review, 51:101–119.
Platt, Anthony, 1977, The Child-Savers, second edition. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Sampson, Robert J. and John H. Laub, 1992, “Crime and Deviance in the Life
Course.” Annual Review of Sociology 18:63–84.
———, 1993, Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points through
Life. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Sanders, Wiley B. (ed.), 1970, Juvenile Offenders for a Thousand Years. Chapel
Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press.
Siegel, Larry J. and Joseph J. Senna, 1988, Juvenile Delinquency, third edition.
St. Paul: West.

issues of choice and reasoning 25
Vold, George B. and Thomas J. Bernard, 1986, Theoretical Criminology, third
edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wright, Bradley R.E., Avshalom Caspi, Terrie E. Moffitt, and Ray Paternos-
ter,2004, “Does the Perceived Risk of Punishment Deter Criminally Prone
Individuals? Rational Choice, Self-Control, and Crime.” Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency 41:180–213.

This page intentionally left blank

3
Biological and Biosocial
Explanations
27Historical Overview
An essential component of the biological approach to delinquency is
that such behavior is caused by some mechanism internal to the indi-
vidual. Biological theories of crime and delinquency (criminality) havebeen proposed for hundreds of years (Fink, 1938 ). However, the works
of early theorists varied considerably on just exactly what this internal
mechanism, or set of mechanisms, might be. Furthermore, many of the
early attempts, like those of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,made little distinction between biological and psychological charac-
teristics, assuming in general that the criminal’s mind is affected by bio-
logical composition. Since nearly all of these theorists had been trainedas physicians, it is logical that they would focus on the physical prop-
erties of the body as the topic of research.
Generic Assumptions
Besides positing that delinquency is a product of internal, physical prop-
erties, modern biological theories usually assume that these properties
at least predispose one to criminality. The predispositions, however,are said to interact with environmental factors which can affect the
influence of biology on behavior. Prior to the twentieth century, many

28 theories of delinquency
assumed that biological factors did more than predispose one to crime—
they directly caused the behavior. A general diagram of the relation-ship between biological factors and delinquent behavior should
incorporate these two explanatory views (Jeffery, 1979; Denno, 1990;
Magnusson et al., 1992; Booth and Osgood, 1993). The assumptions
may be depicted as shown in Figure 1.
It should be noted that the predisposition connection between
biology and delinquency is a reciprocal one. That is, environmental
factors (which can be of a wide variety, such as family and peer asso-
ciations, school performance, and social class membership) may both
be shaped by and influence biological factors. It is the result of thisreciprocal influence that contributes to delinquency.
1 The direct cau-
sation position, however, bypasses environmental situations and sug-gests that a biological phenomenon, such as a brain tumor or some kindof chemical imbalance, can directly lead to delinquency.
Although numerous biological explanations of crime have been of-
fered in the past (Fink, 1938; von Hentig, 1948), many of these theories
made no theoretically substantive distinctions between adult and juvenile
offenders. The subjects of this chapter are some of the more dominant
biological explanations of delinquency, with minimal attention paid to ex-
planations of both crime and delinquency. The specific topics to be dis-
cussed are somatotypes and delinquency, the issue of inheritance and
delinquency, and emerging trends in biosocial explanations of delinquency.
Somatotypes and Delinquency
Specific Assumption Asomatotype is the overall shape of the body,
in consideration of the relative development of the various parts of theFigure 1

biological and biosocial explanations 29
body in comparison with each other. An important feature of somatotype
explanations of delinquency is that one’s character and behavior can
be correlated with the shape and structure of the body. One of the
foremost supporters of this view, William Sheldon, maintains that therelationship between behavior and one’s personality, or character, and
physical features, including body shape, can be traced back approximately
2500 years to the works of Hippocrates ( 1944).
key concept
Somatotype or Body Type Numerous body characteristics are included
in the analysis of somatotypes, such as arm and leg length, head size,muscle development, and bone structure. Implicit in the concept isthat the shape of the body is a reflection of constitutional makeup,
that it is strongly influenced by factors present at birth, and that, nutri-
tion notwithstanding, the basic shape, or body type, remains constant.
Discussion Somatotype theories can be traced to a very influential
body of research—the work of the late-nineteenth-century physician
and psychiatrist Cesare Lombroso. Even though Lombroso did notanalytically separate delinquents from adult criminals, his views areconsidered “classic” and are thus worthy of some attention at this point.Essentially, Lombroso viewed much criminality as a type of degeneracy.Specifically, he referred to some criminals as “atavists” or throwbacksto an earlier form of human life on the evolutionary scale (Lombroso,1911). Furthermore, Lombroso maintained that a large portion of criminal
behavior was inborn, although he entertained exceptions to this viewin the twilight of his career (Lombroso, 1911; Lombroso-Ferrero, 1911).
2
Although Lombroso did not believe in body type in the manner
in which it was developed by Sheldon and others, he did contendthat criminals had definite physical characteristics that distinguished
them from the law-abiding population. The criminal man was sup-posedly characterized by such features as a large jaw, high cheekbones,handle-shaped ears, and even tattoos (Lombroso, 1911). Obviously,
tattoos are not inborn, but were included in the Lombrosoian listbecause they are physical.
The research conducted by Lombroso and his followers was pains-
taking but hardly persuasive, because control groups—that is, peopleselected for comparisons—were rarely used and direct connections

30 theories of delinquency
between physical features and criminality were never established. While
a thorough examination of physical characteristics in relation to crimi-nality questioned several of Lombroso’s claims that criminals have dis-tinct physical appearances, it did not diminish and lay to rest thebiological orientation to explaining crime (Goring, 1913 ), and research
on this topic continued well into the twentieth century (Fink, 1938;
Hooton, 1939; Rafter, 1992).
The first attempt to relate body traits systematically with delin-
quency came from the work of William Sheldon ( 1949). Borrowing
largely from an earlier attempt to correlate body physiques with gen-eral personality and behavior traits (Kretschmer, 1921), Sheldon main-
tained that elements of three basic body types could be found in allpeople: ( 1)endomorphic, or soft, round, and fat; ( 2)mesomorphic ,o r
muscular and hard; and ( 3)ectomorphic , or thin, frail, and weak. Ac-
cording to Sheldon, one could not be characterized as totally one orthe other of these types, but relatively so, on a scale of 1 to 7. Thus,
a person might be predominantly mesomorphic, but still possess someendomorphic or ectomorphic traits. His somatotype might thus be2–6–3. Furthermore, a few people possess no dominant physical shape
characteristics and are described as having a mixed or midrange soma-totype.
Sheldon viewed body types as inborn. Moreover, the importance
of body types in the explanation of behavior lay in the strong associa-tion between physique and temperament, or personality. Endomorphyis associated with a viscerotonic temperament, characterized by extro-version and love of comfort. Mesomorphy is related to assertive, ag-gressive behavior, a somatotonic temperament. Ectomorphs are describedas sensitive, shy, and introverted, referred to as a cerebrotonic tempera-ment (Sheldon, 1949; Vold and Bernard, 1986).
Sheldon applied his somatotype theory in a study of 200 young males
who had been referred to a specialized rehabilitation home for boys inBoston (Hayden Goodwill Inn). Using subjective assessments of body-typing, that is, the observation of photographs, Sheldon concluded thatthe mean somatotype for the “delinquent” sample was 3.5–5.6–2.7, “de-
cidedly mesomorphic” ( 1949:726–729). Furthermore, this mesomorphic
nature of delinquents was held in contrast to a more even distribution ofbody types that was found among 4000 college students.
William Sheldon’s study was shortly followed by a massive explo-
ration of delinquency by a husband and wife team at Harvard, Sheldonand Eleanor Glueck ( 1950). Among dozens of other factors, the Gluecks

biological and biosocial explanations 31
examined the relationship between body type and delinquency in 500
institutionalized, “persistent” delinquents and a matched control sample
of500 “unquestionable nondelinquents.” Measuring body types through
examinations of photographs, the Gluecks concluded that over 60
percent of the delinquents were mesomorphic, compared with about31 percent of the nondelinquents. On the other hand, only 14 per-
cent of the delinquents were ectomorphic, whereas nearly 40 percent
of the nondelinquents were so cast.
Further investigation of somatotypes and delinquency, conducted
by the Gluecks ( 1956), revealed that mesomorphy is highly associated
with such characteristics as high levels of inadequacy, of “not beingtaken care of,” and of emotional instability. However, whether themesomorphic body structure determines these characteristics, or whetherthe personality traits are generated from environmental factors, includ-ing being considered “delinquent,” or a combination of environmen-tal and constitutional factors, was not determined by the Gluecks. Theirconclusion was that delinquency is caused by a combination of envi-ronmental, biological, and psychological factors. From their exhaustiveresearch, they concluded that there is no such thing as a “delinquentpersonality,” among mesomorphs or any other body type. Mesomorphs,for example, may be more delinquent than others because their physi-cal and psychological traits “equip them well for a delinquent role underthe pressure of unfavorable sociocultural conditions . . .” (Glueck andGlueck, 1956:270).
The social context concerning the relationship between mesomor-
phy and delinquency has also been interpreted from a developmentalperspective. In this view, the physically larger, stronger child, usually amale, can successfully “bully” his way around the playground, and some-times get into trouble for his efforts. However, this physically aggressivebehavioral pattern does not persist into late adolescence, presumablybecause these youth have learned other ways to obtain their wishes, orperhaps because the availability of weapons for that age group affordsthe bully an additional tool of persuasion, and the physically weaker youthan opportunity to resist bullying (Killias and Rabasa, 1997).
A third attempt to relate somatotypes to delinquency was pro-
posed as a more definitive approach to the subject by trying to elimi-nate the problems involved with the research of Sheldon and theGluecks (Cortès and Gatti, 1972). The method of somatotyping in this
study was based on comparative measurements of skin folds, bone struc-ture, muscle development, and body weight and height rather than

32 theories of delinquency
from observations of photographs. In addition, assessments of tempera-
ment were based on self-report inventories, as opposed to subjectiveopinions of observers. The definition of delinquency in the Cortès andGatti study, however, was based on the official records of institutions
or court appearances, which limited the applicability of their findings.
Using these measurements and definitions, Cortès and Gatti found
that over half of the 100 delinquents possessed a mesomorphic body
type, compared with 19 percent of the 100 nondelinquents. On the
other hand, 14 percent of the delinquents were endomorphic, while
37 percent of the nondelinquents were endomorphic.
Cortès and Gatti attempted to provide information on whydelin-
quents are predominantly mesomorphic. In this regard, they reportedthat there is a statistical association between high achievement motiva-tion and mesomorphy, for both delinquent and nondelinquent youth.In addition, delinquents, as a group, have higher achievement motiva-tion than nondelinquents. The association between achievement mo-tivation and mesomorphy, however, is greater for nondelinquents thandelinquents, which suggests that other factors, both biological andenvironmental, are operating in conjunction with achievement orien-tations to produce delinquency. The explanation of the relationshipbetween body type and delinquency, therefore, remains unsolved. The
causal connection has not been established.
Evaluation What began as an attempt to detail the constitutional,
physical, and perhaps hereditary prerequisites to delinquency has
developed into a complex biopsychosocial explanation of delinquentbehavior. Over the past 50 to 75 years, during which the somatotype
explanations of delinquency have been researched, measurements have
become more sophisticated and the biological connection has becomeless distinct, less powerful, and less imbued with moral and evolutionary
characteristics. Nonetheless, the specific physiological connection
between body type and behavior is missing. Furthermore, sincemesomorphic, aggressive males may be expected to predominate in
several competitive fields, such as business and athletics (Cortès and
Gatti, 1972), the explanation of the association between physique and
delinquent behavior cannot be based solely on internal properties, even
if these factors could be identified. To be sure, the importance of both
environmental and physical variables in the explanation of delinquency

biological and biosocial explanations 33
is often readily acknowledged. The specific contribution of biological
processes to delinquent behavior, however, can more readily be assessed
when biological properties are detailed. To say that delinquency is in
part caused by biologically “expressive factors” or that the proximate
cause of delinquency is some kind of “negative imbalance within the
individual” is interesting, but hardly lends itself to empirical testing.
In a similar vein to somatotype studies, some research suggests that
pubertal development among boys can affect their involvement indelinquency. Males who experience early biological development tendto have higher rates of delinquency, but the reason, or reasons, for this
connection remain unclear. It could be that early puberty promotes
choices of friends in similar situations, which can also trigger greaterefforts to become independent of parents. However, in a longitudinal
study of delinquency among a national sample of 5700 males in middle
and high school it was concluded that those males who were early de-
velopers did not have more conflicts with their parents, although they
were more likely to be working outside the home. In addition, theearly developers tended to be more academically proficient, whichwould counter the argument that they are choosing delinquent friendsand delinquent pathways (Felson and Haynie, 2002). Thus, although
this study documented a connection between pubertal developmentand delinquency among males, it did not provide a clear reason or theo-retical explanation for the existence of such a connection, leaving a lot
of room for the independent or intervening effects of social variables,
including patterns of family interaction, peer influences, and schoolfactors. Nor does it provide an explanation of pubertal development
and delinquency among females.
These issues are addressed in a later paper by Haynie ( 2003), who
maintains that early pubertal development among females also is stronglyassociated with delinquency, particularly “party deviance” (essentially
status offending) and more minor, property criminal offending. How-ever, Haynie argues that pubertal development alone cannot directly
explain crime and delinquency among females, but early development
combined with attempts to separate from parental controls and super-vision, along with associations with peers (see Chapters 8 and 7) and
romantic involvement, better predict delinquency. As this author states,“In terms of female pubertal development, biology does not provide a

34 theories of delinquency
direct route to delinquency, but rather provides a biasing condition
toward differential associations and delinquency” (p. 389).
Although officially acknowledged delinquents appear to be dis-
proportionately mesomorphic, a logical, biological interpretation of thisrelationship has not been established, and thus the theoretical signifi-
cance of somatotypes as an explanation of delinquency remains ques-tionable. However, newer research on physical development and
delinquency clearly establishes a relationship between pubertal devel-
opment and delinquency for males and females, although apparentlynot in a direct fashion. This line of inquiry is certain to produce addi-
tional information which will help to enlighten an understanding of
the biosocial contributions to delinquency.
Inheritance and Delinquency
Specific Assumptions The assumption of a link between
inheritance and delinquency claims that behavior in general is
determined by factors that are not only present at birth, but aretransmitted, biologically, from parent to child. In some ways this
position is a more general statement of the somatotype explanation
of delinquency. While it is posited that something inborn is causingdelinquency, the specific agent is variously interpreted and only loosely
identified. Rarely are such items as male-female contributions isolated
and more rarely still are the specific mechanisms explained concerninghow inherited factors determine behavior.
The general inheritance explanation also assumes that delinquency
is a wrong that must be caused by a bad or negative source, thus ignor-ing the possibility that a good cultural trait might result in both good
and bad consequences. In general, therefore, the inherited factor, or
factors, that underlies delinquency is considered abnormal or aberrant.
key concept
Concordance Rate Concordance rates refer to the agreement in behav-
ioral outcomes among pairs of individuals—for example, twins or sib-
lings. These rates are significant because they are a major consideration
in the analysis of inheritance through studies of twins and other relatives.

biological and biosocial explanations 35
The behavioral outcome is considered concordant if bothmembers of
the pair exhibit it—that is, if both members of a set of twins have
delinquent records or both are free from such records. When one isdelinquent and the other is not, the pair is discordant.
Discussion The issue of heredity versus environment, nature versus
nurture, as the primary cause of behavior has occupied the attention
of social and behavioral theorists for hundreds of years. It is not surprising
that this debate has also been waged in the literature on crime anddelinquency. During the latter part of the nineteenth century and early
twentieth century, the nature-nurture debate with respect to criminality
was being vigorously waged, mostly in favor of heredity. BesidesLombroso’s claims of having discovered the “born criminal,” numerous
other investigators were trying to establish not only that there was a
biological cause of criminality, but that whatever the biologicalexplanation might be, it was inherited (Fink, 1938).
One of the most popular of these studies was Richard Dugdale’s
late-nineteenth-century analysis of the Jukes in New York (Dugdale,
1888). The lineage of this family included a large number of criminals,
prostitutes, and paupers, thus establishing, in Dugdale’s mind, that pau-
perism, illegitimacy, crime, and heredity were all related and fixed in nature.
There were other attempts to establish a hereditary connection
with crime using this “family tree” method, most notably the work ofH. H. Goddard, who attempted to establish a connection between
heredity, feeblemindedness , and crime (Goddard, 1912,1914). These fam-
ily tree investigations, however, are extremely weak in terms of scien-
tific proof and logic. For example, transmission of criminal, or delinquent,
traits may just as easily be explained through processes of social learn-ing and societal reaction rather than biological and genetic processes.
Dugdale stated in his study, for instance, that the Juke family had, over
several generations, established an infamous reputation in their com-munity. It does not stretch one’s imagination much to envision the dif-
ficulty a “Juke” boy might have, at the turn of the century, in
convincing local residents that he was a bright, “good,” promising childwith a respectable future.
To sort out more accurately the separate effects of heredity and
environment on criminality, studies of twins began to emerge early in

36 theories of delinquency
the twentieth century. The logic behind these studies is that heredi-
tary influences on behavior can be accurately determined by compar-
ing concordance rates of behavior among monozygotic (one-egg,identical, or MZ) twins, dizygotic (two-egg, fraternal, or DZ) twins,
and siblings. If heredity influences behavior more than environment,
concordance rates should be higher among identical twins than amongfraternal twins or siblings.
Numerous studies of criminality among twins have appeared since
the1930s and they have generally, although not invariably, reached the
conclusion that higher rates of concordance are found among identi-
cal twins than among fraternal twins or siblings (Cortès and Gatti, 1972 ;
Christiansen, 1977b; Reid, 1979; Vold and Bernard, 1986).
When patterns of delinquency are separated from adult criminal-
ity, however, other conclusions are often reached. Aaron Rosanoff and
colleagues ( 1934), for example, examined official rates of crime, delin-
quency, and behavioral problems among 340 pairs of same-sex twins.
The twins were classified as “probably monozygotic” or “probablydizygotic.” The uncertainty in classification is based on the authors’recognition that look-alike or identical twins are not always MZ, al-though twins resembling each other very little are likely to be DZ. In
fact, they indicate that “physical, intellectual, and temperamental” in-
equalities among monozygotic twins are the rule rather than the ex-ception (Rosanoff et al., 1934:930).
With these uncertain classifications in mind, the authors generally
concluded that adult criminality is mostly inherited but that juveniledelinquency, particularly female delinquency, is largely attributable to
environmental factors (the number of female twin pairs included in
the study of delinquency, however, was nine, a number too small toyield reliable conclusions).
Such conclusions should be viewed cautiously at this point. With
respect to delinquency , too few studies have been conducted to reveal
a pattern. Data from Japan, for instance, indicate that concordance rates
of delinquency are higher for MZ twins than for DZ twins, although
the information is not very detailed (Christiansen, 1977b).
Studies of twins and criminality have numerous flaws, which present
difficulties in the interpretation of results. The criticisms of this researchinclude: ( 1) the use of a small number of twin pairs, which prevents

biological and biosocial explanations 37
adequate statistical comparisons; ( 2) the difficulty in accurately determining
whether twins are one-egg or two-egg (although efforts in this area are
improving); ( 3) the exclusive use of official definitions of crime and de-
linquency; ( 4) the inadequate control of environmental factors, particu-
larly since these may affect identical twins and twins reared apart(Sutherland and Cressey, 1978; Reid, 1979). To this list should be added
the element of doubt concerning the representativeness of the twins
studied. In the Rosanoff study, for example, allof the twin pairs had at
least one officially identified crime, delinquency, or behavior problem case.
This fact suggests that the researchers first checked the official files on crime
and delinquency to locate the twins rather than locating the twins first
and then checking the files, which is a more valid way of investigatingcriminality among twins.
Some research, particularly in Scandinavia, addresses most of the criti-
cisms of previous studies, thus providing more valid results (Christiansen,1977a,1977b). Unfortunately for the purposes of this book, none of these
more recent studies deals separately with juvenile delinquency; thus theapplication of their results to the issue of heredity and delinquency is ten-tative (Lyons, 1996; Silberg et al., 1996).
A good example of the type of research conducted on twins and
criminality is provided by Odd Dalgard and Einar Kringlen ( 1978). These
workers checked the names of all twins born in Norway between 1921
and1930 with the national criminal record in Norway as of December
31,1966. The procedure yielded a total of 205 pairs of twins, 134 of
which could be included in this study. The results of the comparisonindicated that concordance rates for widely sanctioned criminal acts, such
as violence, theft, and sexual assault, were higher among 31 pairs of MZ
twins than among 54 pairs of DZ twins, although the differences were
not statistically significant. The measurement of zygosity in this study wasmore sophisticated than in most other investigations in that it was based
on blood and serum tests, prompting Dalgard and Kringlen to contendthat their “zygosity diagnosis” was “almost 100 percent correct” ( 1978:296).
Dalgard and Kringlen’s research also went a step further than pre-
vious studies in attempting to control environmental factors. Interviewswith the twins elicited information concerning their life histories and
experiences, going back to childhood. These interviews allowed the
researchers to assess the extent to which the twins felt close to one

38 theories of delinquency
another or were treated alike during their childhood. The results dem-
onstrated that the MZ twin pairs felt they had been reared as a unit,
dressed and treated alike as children, and experienced closeness andcommon identity as children much more than the DZ twins. When
these environmental factors were considered in the analysis, Dalgard
and Kringlen observed that the relationship between twin status andrecorded criminality was virtually eliminated.
In addition, environmental influence on delinquency may be lo-
cated among the interactive patterns of the twins themselves. Onecurrent line of inquiry in this area focuses on the mutual influence sets
of MZ twins may have on each other. Thus, if one of the twin pairs is
involved in criminality, the other will be influenced by the first twin’sbehavior (Carey, 1992).
One investigation of delinquency studied 265 sets of same-sex ado-
lescent twins living in Ohio and concluded that environmental factorshad no influ ence on delinquent behavior (Rowe, 1986). This study
addressed the issue of criminality by mailing questionnaires to sets oftwins who were in school during the academic years 1978–79 and
1980–81. The twins were identified through the assistance of high
schools in Ohio and the Ohio Mothers of Twins Clubs. Those who
responded to the study represented middle- and working-class back-
grounds. Ten percent of the sample were black. Zygosity was deter-mined on the basis of reported height comparisons, eye color, and general
appearance. Uncertain cases ( 6 percent) were either omitted from the
study or subjected to blood analysis for classification.
The measure of delinquency in this study was based on self-reports;
that is, respondents were asked to indicate whether they had commit-
ted any of a number of delinquent acts within the year prior to the sur-vey. As correlates of delinquency, the investigator utilized several
psychological and social-psychological scales, including scale items de-
signed to measure a student’s social bonds to society.
Environmental variables were divided into common and within-family
categories. Common environmental factors included similar treatment
within twin pairs, social class, religion, neighborhood, parental values—in short, “all influences that operate to make siblings alike” (p. 514).
Within-family environmental influences included experiences that wouldbe “unique to each individual,” such as friends or peer relations (p. 514).

biological and biosocial explanations 39
Rowe then compared the simultaneous influence of environmental
and hereditary factors on delinquency (antisocial behavior) and the
attitudinal correlates of delinquency. His interpretation of the resultssupported a genetic influence on delinquency and such psychological
traits as anger, impulsivity, and deceitfulness, especially among males.
However, no such genetic foundations were located for “attitudes to-ward school,” prompting Rowe to conclude that “the genes influenc-
ing attitude toward academic work were notthe same as those influencing
delinquent behavior” (p. 528; italics in the original).
In theoretical context, Rowe concludes his results lend support
to a genetic cause underlying certain psychological traits, such as im-
pulsivity and deceitfulness, which are connected with conditioning, atopic to be discussed later in this chapter. However, no genetic source
was found for the relationship between delinquency and social bonds,
a topic which is discussed in more detail in Chapter 8.
While this research provides additional support for a genetic link
to delinquency, there are some methodological considerations whichlead to precautionary interpretations of the results of this study. First,the sampling procedure yielded a return of under 50 percent (Rowe,
1985). In addition, no inner-city schools were sampled. Second, the
determination of zygosity was based primarily on self-report assessmentsof physical characteristics, not on medical records. Third, the subjectswere allowed to respond to questions in an unsupervised setting. Thus,
reports of delinquency, attitudes, or experiences may not have been
independently expressed. Fourth, environmental influences were notclearly delineated and examined relative to delinquency or other vari-
ables in the analysis.
Evaluation Investigations that attempt to cipher out the unique
effects of heredity versus environment on criminality, or behavior in
general, are bound to yield conflicting results and conclusions. By now,it is clear that both types of factors influence behavior in a very complex
manner. Environmental factors are now thought to exert an influence
on behavior before birth, making the determination of hereditaryinfluences even more difficult (Shah and Roth, 1974). Nonetheless,
the issue is still important in the view of many scholars, and researchcontinues to be conducted.

40 theories of delinquency
In a comparative sense current research on the hereditary influ-
ences on criminality is more objective and generally superior to past
investigations. As with other areas of biological research, moralistic as-sumptions tend to be absent from current studies, and conclusions tend
to be more tentative. If anything, sweeping statements are beginning
to appear against the hereditary position, such as the conclusion of the
Dalgard and Kringlen study discussed above: “the significance of heredi-
tary factors in registered crime is non-existent” (1978:302; italics are in the
original).
Although current research on criminality among twins is address-
ing most of the criticisms of prior studies, several shortcomings stillremain. First, the definition of criminal ordelinquent is still primarily based
on official records. This situation not only poses the problem of
generalizability, but it also raises the question of validity, since concor-
dance of official criminal records may reflect similarities of societal re-actions as well as similarities of behavior (see also, Walters and White,
1989).
Second, more careful assessments of environmental influences on
criminality are beginning to develop, including studies of criminality
among adoptees and among twins reared apart (Christiansen, 1977a,
1977b; Hutchings and Mednick, 1977). For example, a study of crimi-
nality among male adoptees in Denmark indicated that the percentageof adoptees with a criminal record increased with an increase in the
percentage of biological fathers who also had a criminal record
(Hutchings and Mednick, 1977). This relationship persisted despite the
social class of the adoptees’ adopted fathers and despite the record of
criminality of the adoptive fathers. In no instance, however, did the
criminal concordance rate between adoptees and their fathers reach50 percent.
An extension of the Danish study included all nonrelated adop-
tions ( 14,427) which occurred in Denmark between 1924 and 1947
(Mednick et al., 1987a). Using court convictions as the measure of crimi-
nality, the researchers concluded that male adoptee and biological fa-ther crime rates were higher than the rates for female adoptees, adoptivefathers, and either biological or adoptive mothers. In addition, rates of
crime among adopted sons were higher when biological parents had a
criminal record, as compared to the criminal background of adoptive

biological and biosocial explanations 41
parents. However, in this expanded investigation, the highest percent-
age of adopted sons’ criminality was less than 25. Moreover, an exami-
nation of genetic and social-class influences on criminality indicated
that both factors contributed to criminality among adopted sons. As
Mednick et al. conclude, “regardless of genetic background, improved
social conditions are likely to lead to a reduction in criminal behavior”(1987a:86).
A review of the literature on genetic influences on crime and de-
linquency reached a similar conclusion (Cloninger and Gottesman, 1987 ).
These authors, however, take a cautious stance regarding the influence
of genetic factors on criminality. They suggest that environmental and
hereditary variables interact to produce antisocial behavior, but that suchbiological influences are limited. The limited influence of genetics is
especially evident with delinquency. According to Cloninger and
Gottesman, “there is no evidence that genetic factors are important inprepubertal delinquency as a class” ( 1987:106).
Some call for continued research into the issue of biological, par-
ticularly genetic, effects on criminality, and for improved methodologicalprocedures in this research (Denno, 1988; Fishbein, 1990). Others,
however, argue that when improved measures of criminality, as well as
genetic and environmental factors, are incorporated into research, the
estimated influence of genetic variables on crime and delinquency isreduced (Walters and White, 1989).
In a “meta-analysis,” that is, a review of existing research, of the
“gene-crime relationship,” Walters ( 1992) specifically concludes that there
is a measurable and statistically significant hereditary influence on crime.
This analysis included 38 published accounts of research on this topic,
covering twins, family, and adoption settings. Walters further concludes
that the amount of genetic influence on criminal behavior is smaller than
previously thought. In addition, this analysis concludes that there may
be some type of period effect concerning this relationship. Specifically,Walters concludes that studies conducted prior to 1975 generally used
poorer methodological techniques than more recent investigations, andthat the higher estimates of genetic influence on criminality typically
are found in these earlier publications. However, W alters argues that
the decreased significance of genetic factors on criminality is indepen-dent of methodological design (p. 607). Ultimately, Walters feels that

42 theories of delinquency
more fruitful research on this issue will begin to appear when the inter-
action between genes and environment is considered as the indepen-
dent variable. No longer should researchers look upon this topic as aneither-or relationship, but one which is complex and mutually inclusive
of hereditary and environmental influences (p. 609; see also, Denno, 1990).
Nonetheless, detailed and comprehensive assessments of environ-
mental influences on delinquency have not been provided in studieswhich focus on genetic contributions to criminality. It would seem
from the recent literature on the subject, however, that if such de-tailed observations are included, the relative contribution of genetic
influences on delinquency will be lessened. As mentioned earlier, the
existence of what might be considered inheritable conditions mightjust as easily be explained by social learning. Jones and Jones ( 2000)
make this case persuasively, when they discuss the correlation of crimi-nal and delinquent behavior among twins and/or siblings and betweenparents and children in terms of “contagion,” as opposed to biological
inheritance.
Most important, there remains the absence of a specific, biological
explanation of just whatis being inherited to produce crime or delin-
quency. Until such an explanation is developed, the utility of this wholeline of research will be little more than that of somatotype research.
That is, the delineation of “hereditary” effects on crime and delinquencywill only provide a clue to the existence of a biological contribution.
The determination of what the biological factor or factors may be or
of how it (or they) operates to produce crime or delinquency will haveto come from other lines of inquiry.
Continued research supports some genetic contribution to delin-
quency, especially more serious and violent forms of criminality, andespecially for children exhibiting signs of delinquency or “antisocial be-
havior” at an early age, 3–5 years old (Arseneault et al., 2003). However,
many of these studies allow for the influence of environmental factors
interacting with genetic variables in the explanation of criminality (Anderson,
2007:1–124). An analysis of ADD health data, a national longitudinal data
set on youth health and delinquency, compared self-reported delinquencywith a variety of social and individualistic variables. In particular, this study
examined the direct and interactive effects of genetic variations on
delinquency, especially violent and serious forms of youth crime (Guo

biological and biosocial explanations 43
et al., 2008). The authors conclude that genetics and social factors interact
to contribute to serious forms of delinquency. One social factor which
emerged from this analysis as an important co-contributor to delinquencywas eating meals with one or both parents. When this variable was fac-
tored into an equation explaining serious and violent expressions of de-
linquency, the impact of genetics alone was “completely suppressed”(Guo et al., 2008:556). The authors speculate that the delinquency-re-
ducing power of eating with parents may lie with the increased com-munication between parents and children such activities present. Anothersocial factor which co-contributed significantly to delinquency was re-
peating a grade in school. In addition, this study revealed that religious
factors, specifically, weekly church attendance, also played an importantco-contributing role in the explanation of delinquency (pp. 551–557),
although this variable was not discussed in the article cited. In essence,this explanation supports a social bonding explanation of delinquency(see Chapter 8), albeit with the added emphasis of genetic programming
as another conditioning factor (pp. 561–564).
In a thoughtful discussion and critique of biological contributions
to crime, Rowe ( 2002) observes, “There are no genes for specific be-
haviors in humans . . . Among its many effects, a specific gene may nudge
a person toward a stronger criminal disposition” (p. 105). However, such
“nudges” are not particularly strong, and can be influenced not only
by other biological conditions, but also by a host of environmental
factors, many of which are discussed in this book. In addition, Rowe
notes that “We are at the dawn of learning about the genes that influ-ence criminal disposition . . .” (p. 105), a point endorsed in this vol-
ume, and one which should be carefully noted by those who wouldpropose that genetic inheritance is a major and singular explanation ofcrime and delinquency.
Emerging Trends in Biological Explanations
of Delinquency
In the last several decades, many developments have occurred that can
influence the investigation of biological factors in criminality (Shah and
Roth, 1974; Mednick and Christiansen, 1977; Mednick et al., 1987b).

44 theories of delinquency
Some of these developments, such as research on the XYY chromo-
somal configuration, do not relate to juvenile delinquency. Two top-
ics that have specifically been related to delinquency are learningdisabilities and conditionability factors. Both of these topics will be
separately discussed and evaluated. Major assumptions and key con-
cepts are incorporated into the general discussion of each explanation.
Learning Disabilities and Delinquency The term “learning
disability” is a fairly new one, having been coined in the early 1960s
(Murray, 1976). Although the concept embodies many diverse elements,
and some subjectivity in measurement, it is generally considered to be
a disorder or deficiency involving speech, hearing, reading, writing, orarithmetic (Murray, 1976).
While several forms of learning disability are thought to exist, the
most common types are dyslexia , aphasia , and hyperkinesis. Dyslexia in-
volves problems in reading, specifically the inability to interpret writ-
ten symbols. Aphasia includes both visual and auditory deficiencies,
which can sometimes lead to speech difficulties. Hyperkinesis is oftenequated with hyperactivity and comes the closest to overlapping withbiochemical deficiencies. It generally refers to “abnormally excessive
muscular movement,” which can involve both small muscles, such as
in the eye, and large muscles, such as leg muscles (Murray, 1976).
The specific cause of learning disabilities is unknown. Conven-
tional wisdom, however, appears to place the greatest confidence ineventually finding an organic or neurological basis for these disorders(Murray, 1976; Cott, 1978; Kelly, 1979). To illustrate this point, many
such children are labeled as having “minimal brain dysfunction” or asbeing “brain injured.” Or, these children are considered learning dis-abled when it looks as if there is an organic basis for their learning prob-
lems because they are otherwise intelligent and docile. In addition, thepresumed biological basis of learning disabilities is illustrated by CharlesMurray’s contention that hyperkinesis and hyperactivity, though be-
haviorally similar, are not the same thing because “the hyperkinetic child
is thought to have problems which will eventually be traceable to neu-rological origins” (Murray, 1976:14).
The organic, biological link to learning disabilities is a presumption,
albeit a dominant one. Research, however, suggests the possibility of

biological and biosocial explanations 45
environmental factors, particularly family and home conditions, in the
etiology (Shah and Roth, 1974). That is, learning disabilities may be
connected with deficiencies in early learning settings which leave a child
less able to cope with the traditional academic exercises stressed in
school.
Whether or not learning disabilities are organically based, there are
two theoretical rationales linking such disorders to delinquency. Oneexplanation is that learning disabilities produce poor academic achieve-
ment and thus negative attitudes toward the juvenile from relatives, peers,and school officials. The poor grades and negative attitudes, in turn, re-
sult in the child’s associations with others who are also failing in, and
disenchanted with, school, truancy, additional school-related problems,and delinquency (Murray, 1976; Cott, 1978; Holzman, 1979; Fishbein and
Thatcher, 1986:258–259; Meltzer et al., 1986:589–590; Fleener, 1987;
Gallico et al., 1988:44–46,101–18; Fink, 1990).
A second theoretical link stresses that learning disabilities create
physical and personal problems, and thus personality characteristics, thatcan make children susceptible to delinquency. Such children are thoughtto be impulsive and unable to learn from experience, characteristicswhich can lead to disruptions in organized settings such as schools,
general rule violations, and, of course, delinquency. In short, children
with learning disabilities are thought to have a breakdown in the usualsensory-thought processes that enable other children to understand
societal punishment-reward systems attached to behavior. Thus, the
general effectiveness of sanctions on behavior is lessened (Murray, 1976 ;
Morrison, 1978; Satterfield, 1978).
Evaluation The first theoretical link between learning disability and
delinquency basically constitutes a social-psychological explanation. The
organic cause of delinquency, the learning disability, is a precondition,
and probably only one of many preconditions. The more proximate causeof delinquency is the combination of school failure, social rejection, and
association with “bad” companions.
The second theoretical rationale linking learning disabilities with
delinquency is more biologically based than the first. The suggestionthat learning disabilities affect cognitive development and processes of
understanding, which, in turn, render one less appreciative of social

46 theories of delinquency
rules and sanctions, represents a combination of biological and psycho-
logical concepts in the explanation of delinquency. This type of col-
laborative conceptualization is related to one’s ability to learn andappreciate social rules.
The connection between learning disabilities and delinquency, how-
ever, must first be clearly established before any plausible theoreticallink can be thoroughly developed. This connection has notbeen estab-
lished to date. Although some researchers maintain that over 90 percent
of delinquents have some type of learning disability, these kinds of as-sertions are based on subjective and uncritical assessments (Murray, 1976).
Very often, the evidence cited to support a link between learning
disabilities and delinquency is circumstantial and anecdotal, based onthe general opinions and experiences of teachers and clinicians (Murray,
1976; Cott, 1978). Attempts to compare rates of learning disabilities
(though still not consistently defined) among delinquent and nonde-
linquent samples, for the most part, find higher rates of learning dis-
ability among the delinquent samples (Slavin, 1978; Holzman, 1979;
Fleener, 1987). But further investigation indicates that the disabled ju-
veniles commit the same amount and types of delinquency as otheryoungsters (Keilitz el al., 1982; Pickar and Tori, 1986 ). In addition, one
assessment of these quantitative studies reveals that the number of
delinquents labeled as learning disabled ranges from 22 to over 90 percent
(Murray, 1976), while another review concludes that about 35 percent
of juvenile offenders are learning disabled (Casey and Keilitz, 1990).
Inconsistent methodology and statistical procedures, contradictory re-
sults, small sample sizes, narrow definitions of delinquency, and, of
course, variable measurements of learning disability associated with thesestudies all lead to the conclusion that a causal connection between
learning disability and delinquency has not been established.
Attempts to reconcile the conflicting evidence regarding the con-
nection between learning disabilities and delinquency suggest that manylearning-disabled children are able to overcome their handicap and be-
come good students with satisfying social lives (Perlmutter, 1987; Gallico
et al., 1988:47–49). However, some of these youths do not learn to
compensate for their handicap in the learning environment, and are at
“high risk” of developing emotional and behavioral problems as ado-lescents. Perlmutter further hypothesizes that there is little “middle

biological and biosocial explanations 47
ground” for these juveniles. That is, most learn to adapt. The few who
do not adjust develop problems later in adolescence. Therefore, the
connection between learning disability and delinquency is not auto-matic, but can be intercepted by a variety of environmental circum-
stances, including school- and family-based reactive strategies. In short,
most of these kids seem to be able to adjust well in the school andpeer environments of their lives, given strong encouragement and sup-
port in their schools and families.
A longitudinal study of youth in New Zealand supports this de-
velopmental perspective on the connection between learning dis-abilities and delinquency (Moffitt, 1990). This study employed
self-reported measures of delinquency, and other antisocial behavior.
These estimates of delinquency were supplemented by adult estimates
of the juveniles’ behavior. In addition, the research included a num-
ber of individual characteristics, such as IQ and Attention Deficit Dis-order (ADD), and environmental factors, such as family adversity.
Subjects were interviewed and tested at various age intervals, starting
with age 3, then at ages 5,7,9,11,13, and 15. This study is rich in
detail and the type of information needed to examine various con-ceptual and theoretical issues in the fields of child development and
delinquent behavior.
One important conclusion of this research is that children clini-
cally diagnosed as having ADD, which is related to learning disabilities(see, for example, Barkley, 1990; Campbell, 1990), and delinquent youth
are by no means always the same people. In fact, Moffitt suggests that
patterns of delinquency may vary significantly, depending upon the
presence or absence of ADD. For example, the delinquent youth with
ADD began to exhibit antisocial behaviors prior to formal schoolingwhile delinquent youth without ADD began to “behave antisocially”
around the time of entry into high school (p. 901). In addition, Moffitt’s
analysis reports that 46 percent of the ADD youth could be classified
as “nondelinquent” (p. 905 ). Furthermore, the analysis suggests that the
presence of positive characteristics, such as “strong verbal skills and/or
good family circumstances,” can help to offset the potentially negativeconsequences of ADD (p. 907).
Still, continued research clearly establishes a connection between
ADD and ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) and

48 theories of delinquency
delinquency. For example, a meta-analysis of this relationship concludes
that there is an overall effect size of . 156, which is significant. In addi-
tion, the impact of ADHD and ADD on delinquency remains impor-
tant after accounting for other, control, factors, although it is apparently
stronger for whites and samples drawn from Western societies outside
the United States (Pratt et al., 2002). These authors suggest that the
impact of ADD and ADHD on delinquency may come from a lack of
self-control, thought to be associated with these conditions, a conclu-
sion consistent with a general theory of crime, which is discussed inChapters 8 and 12. In addition, ADD and ADHD are thought to occur
primarily in childhood, and thus may be connected with the life-coursepersistent pathway to delinquency. However, as the previous discus-sion regarding Moffitt’s research on this topic suggests, the diagnosis of
ADD does not automatically signal a lifetime of crime and delinquency.
To summarize, the theoretical links between learning disabilities
and delinquency are plausible. The basic evidence in support of a sta-tistical connection between delinquency and learning disability is sug-
gestive, but not overwhelming at this point. However, the significantcontribution of learning disabilities in the understanding of delinquency
seems to lie with its connection to other determinants, such as school
failure and social rejection, rather than through its representation of adirect, organic link to delinquency.
Conditionability and Delinquency One link between learning
disabilities and delinquency is the presumed effect that the former may
have on attention spans and associations between behavior and
sanctions—in other words, the conditionability of people. The subject
of conditioning and delinquency, of course, can be approached from
a variety of social and psychological perspectives. The connection
between organic orphysiological factors and conditionability has been
the subject of much theoretical and research interest, particularly with
respect to crime and delinquency. The general relationship between
conditionability and criminality is most often associated with the workof Hans J. Eysenck ( 1977). To summarize a rather complex theoretical
scheme, Eysenck argues that personality influences behavior. Personality,on the other hand, is largely determined by physiological, perhaps eveninherited, characteristics. Of central concern in this explanation of

biological and biosocial explanations 49
criminality is an understanding of two key personality traits, extroversion
or extra version (outgoingness) and introversion (shyness). An extroverted
personality is sometimes associated with psychopathy, which, in turn,
is associated (not equated) with criminality (Eysenck, 1977; Eysenck
and Gudjonsson, 1989:Chapters 3 and 5).
The concept of psychopathy is central to Eysenck’s theory, and
the term “psychopath” has been widely defined in the literature.
Eysenck views the psychopathic personality as including an orienta-
tion on the present rather than the future, an inability to developemotional attachments with others, severe unreliability, and uncontrol-
lable impulsiveness. Essentially, a psychopath is unable to appreciate
the feelings of others or to become tractable. These traits, in turn, makeone susceptible to criminality (Eysenck, 1977; Eysenck and Gudjonsson,
1989:109–125).
Thebiological component of Eysenck’s theory lies in the assumption
that defects in the autonomic nervous system (ANS), the control center for
emotions in the body, are responsible for the extroversion and intracta-bility of criminals and delinquents. Specifically, he maintains that extro-verts have low inhibitory control and behavior operates without constraint.
Furthermore, they need greater amounts of stimulation than others in
order to be aroused. The lack of inhibitory controls and the greater need
for stimulation reduce conditionability, which in turn increases the chancesof criminality (Eysenck, 1977; Eysenck and Eysenck, 1978).
3
While Eysenck’s theory is applied to both adult criminals and
juvenile delinquents, others have adopted many of his basic assump-tions and applied them specifically to juveniles. Sarnoff Mednick
(1977), for example, suggests that fear is a great inhibitor of behavior
and thus necessary for the development of conformity among juve-
niles. The fear response in humans is controlled by the ANS. Nor-
mally, the ANS recovers quickly from the experience of punishment,
thus facilitating inhibitory control of behavior. The child who pos-sesses an ANS that is slow to recover from punishment is unlikely to
develop strong inhibitory controls and is thus a likely candidate for
delinquency.
Evaluation The evidence concerning a connection between the
ANS, extroversion, and criminality is suggestive, but not commanding.

50 theories of delinquency
For instance, Eysenck cites data that indicate that samples of over 1800
prisoners are significantly more extroverted than a sample of over 1800
nonprisoners (Eysenck, 1977). In addition, Eysenck and Eysenck ( 1978)
provide evidence that samples of over 2000 criminals and delinquents
are more extroverted than samples of over 2000 controls. Furthermore,
this relationship is most pronounced among adolescents and young
adults (see also Eysenck, 1989).
In his longitudinal studies of people (that is, the same people fol-
lowed over a period of time), Mednick ( 1977) indicates that those who
experienced “serious disagreements with the law” have slower “elec-
trodermal recovery” (a measure of ANS) than the controls. In addi-
tion, Mednick cites evidence that psychopathic prisoners have slowerelectrodermal recovery rates than less-psychopathic but “maximum-
security prisoners,” and that prisoners in general have much slower
recovery rates than a sample of college students.
Other studies suggest that officially identified delinquents have slower
electroencephalographic (EEG) readings and fewer conditional responsesthan nondelinquents, even when the response measurements precededthe recorded delinquencies (Loeb and Mednick, 1977; Mednick et al.,
1981), and that more repetitive delinquent reformatory inmates have slower
skin conductance rates than less repetitive inmates (Siddle et al., 1977).
Not all of the evidence, however, is in support of the basic as-
sumptions behind this theory (Hoghughi and Forrest, 1970; Eysenck,
1977; Eysenck and Eysenck, 1978). A review of several studies of per-
sistent juvenile property offenders in England and Wales, for example,indicated that most often the delinquents were either no different or
more introverted than comparison groups of boys (Hoghughi and Forrest,
1970). In addition, the relationships appear to be stronger for some types
of criminality than for others. Eysenck maintains, for example, that therelationship between characteristics of the ANS and criminality is par-
ticularly strong with the psychopathic offender, juvenile or adult. Aconsiderable body of literature is emerging that documents physiological
response differences, associated with the ANS, between psychopaths
and others. Moreover, these results appear in studies using differentdefinitions of psychopathy (Hare and Schalling, 1978; Reid, 1978). Thus,
Eysenck may be correct, but these reservations should be duly notedin the overall assessment of his theory.

biological and biosocial explanations 51
The research that does support an association between the ANS
and criminality should be interpreted cautiously at this point. Sample sizes
are often small, numbering less than 10 cases in some studies. In addition,
the representativeness of the samples, of both offenders and nonoffenders,
is unclear. Virtually all of the studies utilize officially identified samples
of delinquents or criminals, although not always incarcerated offenders.Not only does this procedure limit the scope of the testing of the theory,
but it also raises the question of which came first, the delinquency or
the physiological response characteris tics. Since the ANS is supposed to
govern emotions and reflexes, it is plausible to assume that official iden-
tification of one as delinquent or criminal, whether or not incarcerationoccurs, may alter reflexes and conditioned responses, in contrast to theassumption that slow reflexes and low conditioned response rates lead
to the delinquent behavior in the first place. One way to resolve this
difficulty would be to conduct longitudinal studies, as is now being done(Mednick, 1977). At this time, however, the temporal order of the rela-
tionship between ANS characteristics and criminality remains open todebate.
Even if consistent evidence is produced which indicates that de-
fects in the ANS precede and lead to delinquency, there would still
remain the question of environmental influence superseding, or inter-
acting with, physiological influence. Eysenck has considered this pros-pect, with respect to child-rearing practices in the family, and found it
wanting (Eysenck, 1977). In truth, however, Eysenck’s consideration
of environmental factors is brief and incomplete. Mednick and co-
workers ( 1977) contend that electrodermal recovery rates are “highly
related to criminality only in the lower-middle and middle classes”(p.23), thus suggesting the importance of environmental factors in the
etiology of lower-class criminality.
Environmental issues are also indicated in research which utilizes
teachers’ and parents’ assessments and predictions of behavior amongyouth. Such studies may yield higher levels of skin conductance and
other measures of response time among middle-class “delinquents” butlower response levels among lower-class antisocial youth. One reasonfor this type of reversal may be different interpretations of delinquent
activity among parents of middle- and lower-social class positions
(Venables, 1987). Furthermore, Walsh et al. ( 1987) suggest that love

52 theories of delinquency
deprivation in the child-rearing years of psychopathic offenders may
later result in slower reactions stemming from the ANS when these
individuals encounter uncomfortable circumstances. This situation isparticularly addressed to those who are classified as psychopathic and
violent delinquents or criminals who have low intellectual abilities.
In another review of research regarding this theory, especially as it
pertains to juveniles, some of the criticisms of previous studies are ad-dressed (Eysenck and Gudjonsson, 1989:55–89). For example, research
in this review includes studies using larger sample sizes (often number-
ing in the hundreds and sometimes in the thousands), cross-national
research, and self-report assessments of delinquency. Generally, the
studies reviewed concluded that delinquency is positively associatedwith extraversion, although this relationship is not always reported. In
addition, the connection between delinquency and extraversion is re-
ported in Western countries (such as France, Germany, Great Britain,Israel, and Spain), Eastern European nations (Czechoslovakia and
Hungary), and developing societies (Bangladesh and India).
Eysenck and Gudjonsson also cite studies which conclude that
the positive association between criminality and extraversion is not af-
fected by length of incarceration, which they interpret as supportive
of a long-lasting connection between personality and criminal behav-
ior (p. 79). Additional “longitudinal” research is cited, but there are
few of these and the results are not consistently supportive of the theory.
Another bit of “evidence” mentioned by these reviewers is what
they see as a connection between the release of mental patients inthe United States and Great Britain during the past three decades,
and correlative increases in prison populations (pp. 85–88). This asso-
ciation is offered as supportive of the connection between criminal
behavior and personality abnormality. However, in another section
of their book, the authors maintain that mental illness and crime are
complexly intertwined, and that “it is the exception rather than therule for criminal behavior to be largely attributable in a simple way to
a specific psychiatric diagnosis” (p. 219). Thus the straightforward
correlation between psychiatric hospital releases and prison population
increases is not as “simple” as it might appear, nor should the associa-
tion be interpreted in a causal manner. Furthermore, the true com-
plexity of the connection between criminality and psychological traits

biological and biosocial explanations 53
is another indication of the need to assess the role of environmental
factors in the explanation of such behavior.
In summary, the theoretical connection between delinquency and
differences in personality and ANS characteristics is plausible. Researchevidence relative to the theory is suggestive but not conclusive. This
line of inquiry is promising, but firm conclusions cannot yet be reached,particularly regarding the interplay between the ANS and environmental
factors in the explanation of delinquency.
Summary
The biological approach to delinquency has undergone several changes
in this century. First, modern biological theories seldom display the evo-
lutionary themes so common in the eighteenth and nineteenth centu-ries. Delinquents are no longer seen as evolutionary throwbacks or
degenerates. The modern view characterizes biological factors as pre-
disposing certain individuals toward criminality rather than determin-ing crime and delinquency. Second, modern theories are much moreinterdisciplinary than in the past. Personality factors and environmental
conditions are often considered, if not formally included, in the propo-
sitions of the theories and in research designed to test them. Seldomare claims made that solely profess biological explanations of delinquency
over all other possible explanations, as was common at the turn of the
century. Third, research on the biological contributions to delinquencyis more sophisticated than in the past. Control groups are more often
used, longitudinal designs are beginning to emerge, and definitions of
key variables are being revised and refined.
As these conceptual and methodological changes develop, the
overall explanatory power of biological factors appears to diminish. Thisis not to say that modern theory and research reduce the biologicalaspects of delinquency to a level of unimportance. Instead, this con-
clusion is meant to emphasize the relative decline in the overall impor-
tance attributed to the biological roots of delinquency, particularly inview of recent theory and research. At the same time, many of the
biological explanations that are now emerging are plausible and wor-
thy of continued investigation, particularly those theories which address

54 theories of delinquency
the biological influences on cognitive development and learning capa-
bilities. It should be anticipated that these aspects of the biological bases
of delinquency will continue to be more fully developed in the futureand will contribute to a better understanding of delinquent behavior.
It should also be anticipated, however, that the importance of biologi-
cal factors in the explanation of delinquency will increasingly be fo-cused on the connections and interactions between these conditions
and the more proximate, environmental bases of delinquency rather
than on their direct relationship to the antisocial behavior of juveniles.
Notes
1. Some suggest that environmental factors may have different impacts on
people depending on their biological characteristics (Rowe and Osgood, 1984).
Others suggest that biological and environmental conditions operate indepen-
dently in their influences on criminality (Gabrielli and Mednick, 1984).
2. For an interesting discussion of a contemporary evolutionary interpreta-
tion of crime, and hypotheses based upon an evolutionary perspective, see Ellisand Walsh, 1997. Also, a detailed discussion of the methods and instruments
used by Lombroso and others identified with “Italian criminal sciences” is foundin Horn, 2003.
3. For a similar explanation of crime and delinquency, but without a neces-
sary biological base, see Wilson and Herrnstein ( 1985:Chapter 2).
References
Anderson, Gail S., 2007, Biological Influences on Criminal Behavior. Boca
Raton, Fl: Simon Fraser University Publications.
Arseneault, Louise, Terrie E. Moffitt, Avshalom Caspi, Alan Taylor, Fruhling
V. Rijsdijk, Sara R. Jaffee, Jennifer C. Ablow, and Jeffrey R. Measelle, 2003,
“Strong Genetic Effects on Cross-Situational Antisocial Behaviour among
5-Year-Old Children According to Mothers, Teachers, Examiner-Observers,
and Twins’ Self-Reports.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry44:832–848.
Barkley, Russell A., 1990, “Attention Deficit Disorders: History, Definition,
and Diagnosis.” Pp. 65–75 in Michael Lewis and Suzanne Miller (eds.), q.v.
Booth, Alan and D. Wayne Osgood, 1993, “The Influence of Testosterone on
Deviance in Adulthood: Assessing and Explaining the Relationship.”Criminology 31:93–117.

biological and biosocial explanations 55
Brennan, Patricia A. and Sarnoff A. Mednick, 1990, “A Reply to Walters and
White: ‘Heredity and Crime.’” Criminology 28:657–661.
Campbell, Susan B., 1990, “The Socialization and Social Development of
Hyperactive Children.” Pp. 77–91 in Michael Lewis and Suzanne Miller
(eds.), q.v.
Carey, Gregory, 1992, “Twin Imitation for Antisocial Behavior: Implications
for Genetic and Family Environment Research.” Journal of Abnormal
Psychology 101:18–25.
Casey, Pamela and Ingo Keilitz, 1990, “Estimating the Prevalence of Learning
Disabled and Mentally Retarded Juvenile Offenders: A Meta-Analysis.”Pp.82–101 in Peter E. Leone (ed.), Understanding Troubled and Trou-
bling Youth. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
Christiansen, Karl O., 1977a, “A Review of Studies of Criminality among Twins.”
Pp.45–88 in Sarnoff A. Mednick and Karl O. Christiansen (eds.), q.v.
———, 1977b, “A Preliminary Study of Criminality among Twins.” Pp. 89–108
in Sarnoff A. Mednick and Karl O. Christiansen (eds.), q.v.
Cloninger, C. R. and I. I. Gottesman, 1987, “Genetic and Environmental
Factors in Anti-Social Behavior Disorders.” Pp. 92–109 in Sarnoff A.
Mednick, Terrie E. Moffitt, and Susan A. Stack (eds.), q.v.
Cortes, Juan B. with Florence M. Gatti, 1972, Delinquency and Crime.
New York: Seminar Press.
Cott, Allan, 1978, “The Etiology of Learning Disabilities, Drug Abuse and
Juvenile Delinquency.” Pp. 61–74 in Leonard J. Hippchen (ed.), q.v.
Dalgard, Odd Steffen and Einar Kringlen, 1978, “Criminal Behavior in Twins.”
Pp.292–307 in Leonard D. Savitz and Norman Johnston (eds.), Crime in
Society. New York: Wiley.
Denno, Deborah W., 1988, “Human Biology and Criminal Responsibility:
Free Will or Free Ride?” University of Pennsylvania Law Review137:615–671.
———, 1990, Biology and Violence: From Birth to Adulthood. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Dugdale, Richard L., 1888. The Jukes: A Study in Crime, Pauperism, Disease
and Heredity, fourth edition. New York: Putnam.
Ellis, Lee and Anthony Walsh, 1997, “Gene-Based Evolutionary Theories in
Criminology.” Criminology 35:229–276.
Eysenck, H. J., 1977, Crime and Personality, third edition. London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul.
———, 1989, “Personality and Criminality: A Dispositional Analysis.”
Pp.89–110 in William S. Laufer and Freda Adler (eds.), Advances in Crimi-
nological Theory. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction.

56 theories of delinquency
Eysenck, H. J. and S. B. G. Eysenck, 1978, “Psychopathy, Personality, and
Genetics.” Pp. 197–223 in R. D. Hare and D. Schalling (eds.), q.v.
Eysenck, H. J. and Gisli H. Gudjonsson, 1989, The Causes and Cures of Crimi-
nality. New York: Plenum.
Felson, Richard and Dana L. Haynie, 2002 , “Pubertal Development, So-
cial Factors, and Delinquency among Adolescent Boys.” Criminology
40:967–988.
Fink, Arthur E., 1938, Causes of Crime. New York: A. S. Barnes.
Fink, Carolyn Molden, 1990, “Special Education Students at Risk: A Com-
parative Study of Delinquency.” Pp. 61–81 in Peter E. Leone (ed.), q.v.
Fishbein, Diana H., 1990, “Biological Perspectives in Criminology.” Crimi-
nology 28:27–72.
Fishbein, Diana H. and Robert W. Thatcher, 1986, “New Diagnostic Meth-
ods in Criminology: Assessing Organic Sources of Behavioral Disorders.”Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 23:240–267.
Fleener, Fran Trocinsky, 1987, “Learning Disabilities and Other Attributes as
Factors in Delinquent Activities among Adolescents in a Nonurban Area.”Psychological Reports 60:327–334.
Gabrielli, William F., Jr. and Sarnoff A. Mednick, 1984, “Urban Environment,
Genetics, and Crime.” Criminology 22:645–652.
Gallico, Rubin, Thomas J. Burns, and Charles S. Grob, 1988, Emotional and
Behavioral Problems in Children with Learning Disabilities. Boston: Little,Brown.
Glueck, Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck, 1950, Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency.
New York: Commonwealth Fund.
———, 1956, Physique and Delinquency. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Goddard, Henry H., 1912, The Kallikak Family. New York, Macmillan.
———, 1914, Feeble-Mindedness. New York: Macmillan.
Goring, Charles B., 1913, The English Convict. Reprinted, Montclair, N.J.:
Patterson Smith Reprint, 1972.
Guo, Guang, Michael E. Roettger, and Tianji Cai, 2008, “The Integration of
Genetic Propensities into Social-Control Models of Delinquency and Vio-
lence among Males.” American Sociological Review 73:543–568.
Hare, R. D. and D. Schalling (eds.), 1978, Psychopathic Behavior. New York:
Wiley.
Haynie, Dana L., 2003, “Context of Risk? Explaining the Link between Girls’
Pubertal Development and Their Delinquency Involvement.” Social Forces82:355–397.
Hippchen, Leonard, J. (ed.), 1978, Ecologic-Biochemical Approaches to Treat-
ment of Delinquents and Criminals. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

biological and biosocial explanations 57
Hoghughi, M. S. and A. R. Forrest, 1970, “Eysenck’s Theory of Criminality:
An Examination with Approved School Boys.” British Journal of Criminol-
ogy10:240–254.
Holzman, Harold R., 1979, “Learning Disabilities and Juvenile Delinquency:
Biological and Sociological Theories.” Pp. 77–86 in C. R. Jeffery (ed.), q.v.
Hooton, Ernest A., 1939, Crime and the Man. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Horn, David G., 2003, The Criminal Body: Lombroso and the Anatomy of
Deviance. New York: Routledge.
Hutchings, Barry and Sarnoff A. Mednick, 1977, “Criminality in Adoptees
and Their Adoptive and Biological Parents: A Pilot Study.” Pp. 127–141
in Sarnoff A. Mednick and Karl O. Christiansen (eds.), q.v.
Jeffery, C. R. (ed.), 1979, Biology and Crime. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Jones, Marshall B. and Donald R. Jones, 2000, “The Contagious Nature of
Antisocial Behavior.” Criminology 38:25–46.
Keilitz, Ingo, Barbara A. Zaremba, and Paul K. Broder, 1982, “Learning Dis-
abilities and Juvenile Delinquency.” Pp. 95–104 in Leonard D. Savitz and
Norman Johnston (eds.), Contemporary Criminology. New York: Wiley.
Kelly, Henry E., 1979, “Biosociology and Crime.” Pp. 87–99 in C. R. Jeffrey
(ed.), q.v.
Killias, Martin and Juan Rabasa, 1997, “Weapons and Athletic Constitution
as Factors Linked to Violence among Male Juveniles.” British Journal ofCriminology 37:446–457.
Kretschmer, Ernst, 1921, Physique and Character, second edition, translated by
W. J. H. Sprott. Reprinted, New York: Cooper Square Publishers, 1936.
Lewis, Michael and Suzanne Miller (eds.), Handbook of Developmental
Psychology. New York: Plenum.
Loeb, Janice and Sarnoff A. Mednick, 1977, “A Prospective Study of Predic-
tors of Criminality: 3 Electrodermal Response Patterns.” Pp. 245–254 in
Sarnoff A. Mednick and Karl O. Christiansen (eds.), q.v.
Lombroso, Cesare, 1911, Crime, translated by Henry P. Horton. Reprinted,
Montclair, N.J.: Patterson Smith Reprint, 1968.
Lombroso-Ferrero, Gina, 1911, Criminal Man. New York: Putnam.
Lyons, Michael J., 1996, “A Twin Study of Self-Reported Criminal Behaviour.”
Pp.61–75 in Gregory R. Bock and Jamie A. Goode (eds.), Genetics of
Criminal and Antisocial Behaviour. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Magnusson, David, Britt af Klinteberg, and Hakan Stattin, 1992, “Autonomic
Activity/Reactivity, Behavior, and Crime in a Longitudinal Perspective.”Pp.287–318 in Joan McCord (ed.), Facts, Frameworks, and Forecasts. New
Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction.

58 theories of delinquency
Mednick, Sarnoff A., 1977, “A Bio-Social Theory of the Learning of Law-
Abiding Behavior.” Pp. 1–8 in Sarnoff A. Mednick and Karl O. Christiansen
(eds.), q.v.
Mednick, Sarnoff A. and Karl O. Christiansen (eds.), 1977, Biosocial Bases of
Criminal Behavior. New York: Gardner Press.
Mednick, Sarnoff A., William F. Gabrielli, Jr., and Barry Hutchings, 1987a,
“Genetic Factors in the Etiology of Criminal Behavior.” Pp. 74 –91 in
Sarnoff A. Mednick, Terrie E. Moffitt, and Susan A. Stack (eds.), q.v.
Mednick, Sarnoff A., Lis Kirkegaard-Sorensen, Barry Hutchings, Joachim Knop,
Raben Rosenberg, and Fini Schulsinger, 1977, “An Example of Bio-social
Interaction Research: The Interplay of Socioenvironmental and Individual
Factors in the Etiology of Criminal Behavior.” Pp. 9–23 in Sarnoff A.
Mednick and Karl O. Christiansen (eds.), q.v.
Mednick, Sarnoff A., Terrie E. Moffitt, and Susan Stack (eds.), 1987b, The
Causes of Crime: New Biological Approaches. Cambridge; CambridgeUniversity Press.
Mednick, Sarnoff A., Jan Voluka, William F. Gabrielli, Jr., and Turan M.
Itil,1981, “EEG as a Predictor of Antisocial Behavior.” Criminology
19:219–229.
Meltzer, Lynn J., Bethany N. Roditi, and Terrence Fenton, 1986, “Cognitive
and Learning Profiles of Delinquent and Learning-Disabled Adolescents.”Adolescence XXI: 581–591.
Moffitt, Terrie, E., 1990, “Juvenile Delinquency and Attention Deficit Disorder:
Boys’ Developmental Trajectories from Age 3 to Age 15.” Child Develop-
ment 61:893–910.
Morrison, Helen L., 1978, “The Asocial Child: A Destiny of Sociopath?”
Pp.22–65 in William H. Reid (ed.), q.v.
Murray, Charles A., 1976, The Link between Learning Disabilities and Juve-
nile Delinquency. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
Patterson, Gerald R. and Karen Yoerger, 1993, “Developmental Models for
Delinquent Behavior.” Pp. 140–172 in Sheilagh Hodgins (ed.), Mental
Disorder and Crime. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
Perlmutter, Barry F., 1987, “Delinquency and Learning Disabilities: Evi-
dence for Compensatory Behaviors and Adaptation.” Journal of Youthand Adolescence 16:89–95.
Pickar, Daniel B. and Christopher D. Tori, 1986, “The Learning Disabled
Adolescent: Eriksonian Psychosocial Development, Self-Concept, andDelinquent Behavior.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 15:429–440.
Pratt, Travis C., Francis T. Cullen, Kristie R. Blevins, Leah Daigle, and James
D. Unnever, 2002, “The Relationship of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity

biological and biosocial explanations 59
Disorder to Crime and Delinquency: A Meta-Analysis.” International Jour-
nal of Police Sciences & Management 4:344–360.
Rafter, Nicole Hahn, 1992, “Criminal Anthropology in the United States.”
Criminology 30:525–545.
Reid, Sue Titus, 1979, Crime and Criminology, second edition. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Reid, William H., (ed.), 1978, The Psychopath. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Rosanoff, Aaron J., Leva M. Handy, and Isabel Avis Rosanoff, 1934, “Crimi-
nality and Delinquency in Twins.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminol-ogy24:923–934.
Rowe, David C., 1985, “Sibling Interaction and Self-Reported Delinquency
Behavior: A Study of 265 Twin Pairs.” Criminology 23:223–240.
———, 1986, “Genetic and Environmental Components of Antisocial
Behavior: A Study of 265 Twin Pairs.” Criminology 24:513–532.
———, 2002, Biology and Crime. Los Angeles: Roxbury.
Rowe, David C. and D. Wayne Osgood, 1984, “Heredity and Sociological
Theories of Delinquency.” American Sociological Review 49:526–540.
Satterfield, James H., 1978, “The Hyperactive Child Syndrome: A Precur-
sor of Adult Psychopathy?” Pp. 329–346 in R. D. Hare and D. Schalling
(eds.), q.v.
Shah, Saleem A. and Loren H. Roth, 1974, “Biological and Psychophysiological
Factors in Criminality.” Pp. 101–173 in Daniel Glaser (ed.), Handbook of
Criminology. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Sheldon, William H., 1944, “Constitutional Factors in Personality.” Pp. 526–549
in J. McV. Hunt (ed.), Personality and the Behavior Disorders, Volume 1.
New York: Ronald Press.
———, 1949, Varieties of Delinquent Youth. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Siddle, David A. T., Sarnoff A. Mednick, A. R. Nicol, and Roger H.
Foggitt, 1977, “Skin Conductance Recovery in Anti-Social Adoles-
cents.” Pp. 213–216 in Sarnoff A. Mednick and Karl O. Christiansen
(eds.), q.v.
Silberg, Judy, Joanne Meyer, Andrew Pickles, Emily Simonoff, Lindon Eaves,
John Hewit, Hermine Maes, and Michael Rutter, 1996, “Heterogeneity
among Juvenile Behaviours: Findings from the Virginia Twin Study ofAdolescent Behavioral Development.” Pp. 76–86 in Gregory R. Bock
and Jamie A. Goode (eds.), q.v.
Slavin, Sidney, H., 1978, “Information Processing Defects in Delinquents.”
Pp.75–104 in Leonard J. Hippchen (ed.), q.v.
Sutherland, Edwin H. and Donald R. Cressey, 1978, Criminology, tenth edi-
tion. New York: Lippincott.

60 theories of delinquency
Venables, Peter H., 1987, “Autonomic Nervous System Factors in Criminal
Behavior.” Pp. 110–136 in Sarnoff A. Mednick, Terrie E. Moffitt, and
Susan A. Stack (ed.), q.v.
Vold, George and Thomas J. Bernard, 1986, Theoretical Criminology, third
edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
von Hentig, Hans, 1948, The Criminal and His Victim. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Walsh, Anthony, J. Arthur Beyer, and Thomas A. Petee, 1987, “Violent
Delinquency: An Examination of Psychopathic Typologies.” Journal of
Genetic Psychology 148:385–392.
Walters, Glenn D., 1990, “Heredity, Crime, and the Killing-of-the-Bearer-
of-Bad-News Syndrome: A Reply to Brennan and Mednick.” Criminol-ogy28:663–667.
———, 1992, “A Meta-Analysis of the Gene-Crime Relationship.” Crimi-
nology 30:595–613.
Walters, Glenn D. and Thomas W. White, 1989, “Heredity and Crime: Bad
Genes or Bad Research?” Criminology 27:455–485.
Wilson, James D. and Richard J. Hernstein, 1985, Crime and Human Nature.
New York: Simon and Schuster.

psychological theories 61 4
Psychological Theories
61Historical Overview
Many scholars, policymakers, and laypersons have argued that there are
individual differences in intelligence, personality, or other factors thatnot only separate delinquents from all other youths but that are, directly
or indirectly, the causes of their delinquency. These can be summarized
as psychological theories, and while it is possible that some of these fac-tors are hereditary or inborn, and hence can be thought of as biological,this is not necessarily the case.
Perhaps the earliest attempt to isolate the psychological or mental
aspects of criminal behavior was the development of the concept ofinsanity, particularly moral insanity (Fink, 1938). It was typically sug-
gested that criminals and delinquents were deficient in basic moral senti-ments and that, furthermore, this condition was inherited. Theassumption that the lack of basic moral sentiments was an inherited
trait contributed to the fusion of biological and psychological proper-
ties in the explanation of criminality.
With the introduction of intelligence tests around the turn of the
twentieth century, students of crime and delinquency began to con-centrate on the specific mental aspects of aberrant behavior, although,again, earlier analyses of the intellectual capacities of criminals and delin-
quents assumed that intelligence was inherited and thus, essentially, a
biological component of behavior.

62 theories of delinquency
Toward the end of the nineteenth century, Sigmund Freud and
others began to write of the internal workings of the mind and person-
ality configurations, and how these components of the human condition
affected behavior, including criminality. Collectively, this position is oftenreferred to as the psychiatric- psychoanalytic approach, although it is gener-
ally recognized that psychoanalysis is a form of psychiatry, which is focused
on the treatment of human behavioral problems. With the establishmentof the juvenile court concept in 1899, the influence of the psychiatric
position relative to delinquency became prominent. Delinquents were
viewed as behaving under the influence of a disease, a condition which
would become worse if it were not treated. In accordance with thisphilosophy, psychiatrically influenced child-guidance clinics were estab-
lished during the first third of the twentieth century, often as extensions
of the juvenile court (Krisberg and Austin, 1978).
Generic Assumptions
Throughout the twentieth century, the psychological approach to de-
linquency developed and, at times, flourished. Some of the more promi-nent variations of this overall approach included concepts of mental
deficiency, psychiatric disturbances, and general personality configura-
tions. Generically they shared some common, basic assumptions: ( 1) The
basic cause of delinquency lies within the individual’s patterns and devel-
opments. Delinquent behavior, in other words, is a manifestation of in-ternal, underlying disturbances. ( 2) Whatever the specific psychological
disturbance which might exist in any particular delinquent behavior pat-
tern, it most probably began to develop not later than early childhood
Figure 2

psychological theories 63
and has become a fairly characteristic feature of the individual. ( 3) While
allowance is given for the potential modifying effects of external, envi-
ronmental factors, it is the individual who has the problem and it is thus
on the individual that one must focus if the problem is to be resolved
and the consequent delinquent behavior is to be changed.
The causation chain that links psychological theories to delinquency
may be depicted as shown in Figure 2. Thus, the proximate cause of
delinquency, and the appropriate focus of concern, is the psychologi-cal abnormality, not the factors which produced it. The psychological
abnormalities may be considered as responses to biological or environ-
mental conditions. Delinquency, in turn, may be seen as a response topsychological problems. It is recognized that both the psychological
conditions and the delinquent behavior may affect the antecedent bio-
logical and environmental factors, thus generating new psychologicaland behavioral adjustments. From this perspective, however, the focus
remains on the psychological conditions and their effect on delinquency.
Intelligence and Delinquency
Specific Assumptions At the turn of the century, a number of
investigators concluded that a general lack of intelligence was an
important contributing factor to crime, delinquency, and a host ofassorted social ills. A basic assumption of these earlier investigations was
that lack of intelligence directly led to criminal behavior by rendering
one less capable of appreciating the immorality of behavior or thecomplexity of a particular situation. Second, it was assumed that those
of low intelligence were less able to control their emotions and desires,
and were thus more likely to engage in criminality, not because theyparticularly wanted to, but because they could rarely keep their behavior
in check. Later investigations have assumed that intelligence affects
delinquency indirectly , because it affects other factors which have a more
direct connection with delinquency.
key concept
Intelligence In the literature connecting intelligence with delinquency,
the key concept is intelligence. Besides the issue of whether intelligence

64 theories of delinquency
is innately or environmentally determined, which goes beyond the scope
of this book, there remains the crucial question of how to measure theconcept.
Many of the earlier investigations of criminality utilized definitions
of intelligence that were based on logic; that is, low intelligence wasoften associated with placement in institutions for those of low intel-
ligence (the feebleminded) or with some similar “official” judgment.
Typically, these judgments were based on commonsense observations,association and memory tests, or just plain guesswork (Fink, 1938).
At the turn of the century, Alfred Binet, and later Theodore S.
Terman, devised intelligence tests (IQ tests), which have come to beused, in modified versions, in most intelligence tests today. IQ tests
have themselves become the center of much controversy and debate
in terms of their reliability and validity (Jensen, 1969; Richardson
and Spears, 1972; Senna, 1973; Whimbey and Whimbey, 1975; Block
and Dworkin, 1976; Jensen, 1980; Eysenck and Kamin, 1981; Grace and
Sweeney, 1986; Haynes et al., 1986; Haynes and Howard, 1986), but,
again, these issues lie on the periphery of the present discussion. The
main point to be made for now is that the dominant measurement of
intelligence today is that which an IQ test measures and that the valid-ity of these tests is still being examined.
Discussion With the introduction of IQ tests as the basic measure
of intelligence, the investigation between intelligence and criminality
began to flourish. This interest in the intellectual characteristics of
criminals and delinquents was spearheaded by H. H. Goddard, anadministrator of the New Jersey School for the Feeble-Minded. In 1912,
Goddard published an examination of the Kallikak family, a memberof whom had been sent to the school. This family had two lines ofprogeny, one emanating from a “feebleminded” barmaid and the other
from a “respectable girl of good family.” The former line “produced”
an assorted array of illegitimate children, prostitutes, alcoholics, criminals,and other deviants. The latter lineage consisted of a variety of governors,
senators, doctors, and “good” people.
Two years later, Goddard ( 1914) published a study on the intel-
lectual capacities of inmates in 16 reformatories. He found the percentage
of “defectives,” of feebleminded inmates, to range from 28 to 89, with

psychological theories 65
an estimated average of 50 percent. The results of these studies led
Goddard to conclude that criminal behavior was largely attributable to
weak intelligence.
Although Goddard’s study of the Kallikak family employed a sub-
jective definition of feeblemindedness, the later investigation identi-fied feeblemindedness on the basis of the IQ distributions among those
in institutions for the feebleminded. These distributions yielded an IQ
of75 or less, or a mental age of 12 or below, as the cutoff points for
classifying one as feebleminded.
The initial wave of research which followed Goddard’s earlier studies
reported that feebleminded prisoners constituted from about 25 to 90
percent of prison populations (Fink, 1938). The validity of this research,
however, came into question when the U.S. Army began to adminis-ter IQ tests to Army draftees during World War I. These tests indi-cated that roughly one-third of the draftee population was feebleminded,
according to the definition of feeblemindedness then in use (Zeleny,
1933). Clearly, this was an unsettling proposition for most people to
accept. Accordingly, the definition of feeblemindedness was revised
downward to an IQ of 50, or a mental age of 8 or below, to conform
to more trustworthy proportions. This readjustment cast doubt on the
earlier work of Goddard and others which had so often linked low
intelligence and feeblemindedness with delinquency.
Subsequent investigations, armed with the revised guidelines for
feeblemindedness, and using direct comparisons between criminals anddelinquents and other population subgroups, have generally failed to
establish any clear, consistent connection between IQ and criminality(Zeleny, 1933; Tulchin, 1939; Sutherland and Cressey, 1978; Vold and
Bernard, 1986). Some studies, for example, have found criminals to be
of higher intelligence than Army draftees (Murchison, 1926).
Besides numerous methodological problems, such as sampling
design and definitions of criminality, the inconsistent findings of theselatter studies tended to focus attention on causative factors other thanintelligence. For several decades, therefore, scant attention was paid to
the intelligence of delinquents and criminals. Recently, however, sev-
eral investigators have begun to include intellectual functioning in theirtheories of criminality, and nearly all of these formulations have been
addressed to delinquency. Roy Austin ( 1975), for example, suggests that

66 theories of delinquency
intelligence is a major factor in the development of interpersonal ma-
turity levels.
In a discussion of delinquency rate measurement, Robert Gordon
(1976) examines delinquency prevalence rates, in contrast to delinquency
incidence rates. Prevalence rate is a measurement of the proportion of agiven age cohort, or specific age category of people, that have commit-
ted delinquent acts by a certain age in life. Gordon proceeds to analyze
existing delinquency prevalence figures, based on official accounts, andconcludes that nonwhite juvenile males have uniformly higher arrest rates
and court appearance rates than white males or females, regardless of any
specific geographical location, rural or urban.
Gordon proposes that differences in IQ may provide the greatest
explanation of the persistent differences that he sometimes documentsand sometimes assumes. Differences in IQ distributions in specific popu-lations are offered as the basic explanation for differences in delinquency
rates between these same populations for the following reasons: ( 1) the
IQ distribution in a population is constant across time and geographi-
cal location; ( 2) IQ is directly associated with delinquency among whites
(which, Gordon suggests, also explains the consistently higher officialdelinquency rates among lower-class, as opposed to middle-class,whites); ( 3) low IQ could be responsible for the higher crime and
delinquency concordance rates among monozygotic twins comparedto dizygotic twins; ( 4) low IQ might explain the results of one study
wherein a higher rate of criminality was found among adoptees of
unknown parentage; ( 5) IQ differences in general between racial groups
are in the same direction and of similar magnitude as the differences
between these racial groups in terms of delinquency (when differences
in IQ between blacks and whites are controlled, differences in delin-
quency prevalence rates disappear); ( 6) there is a relatively high rate of
delinquency in middle-class African-American neighborhoods (which
some would challenge; Gordon, 1976:256–265).
Although Gordon raises the issue of innate ability as a basic com-
ponent of IQ, he eventually appears to be implicating IQ in the cau-sation of delinquency because low IQ is presumed to inhibit the
socialization process of children. Not only are low-IQ children less likely
to comprehend the world in which they are forced to live (particularly
those whose IQ score falls between 50 and 90), but they will more

psychological theories 67
likely be raised by parents whose IQ is also low. Thus, the ability of
these parents to socialize their children appropriately is diminished. Itshould be noted that many of Gordon’s assertions, especially the idea
that low-IQ parents are poor socializers, are conjectural (Sampson and
Laub, 1993:529). As Edward Sagarin states:
We have no empirical proof—or disproof—that low-IQparents are ineffective socializing agents. We do not have
evidence that low-IQ delinquents have low-IQ parents or that
high-IQ delinquents (yes, there are such) have high-IQparents. . . . We do not know whether high-IQ children or
children of high-IQ parents have greater opportunities to
escape official recognition as delinquents. The entire argumentsuffers from a lack of parsimony: Occam’s razor has never been
so dull as in the hands of Gordon. (Sagarin, 1980:17)
In another article, Travis Hirschi and Michael Hindelang ( 1977)
analyze earlier studies of the relationship between intelligence and
delinquency and conclude that the available evidence does support a
connection between the two variables.
As far as official rates of delinquency are concerned, Hirschi and
Hindelang conclude from their secondary analysis that IQ predicts delin-quency as well as do race and social class and better than other variables,
such as family status, which has traditionally been linked with delinquency.
With respect to self-report or unofficial delinquency, the relation-
ship with intelligence is evident, but not as strong as the relationshipbetween intelligence and official records. Hirschi and Hindelang offertwo suggestions for this discrepancy: ( 1) those with low IQs may be
the least able or the least willing to respond meaningfully to a self-re-port questionnaire but still be the most delinquent youth in a sampleand (2 ) IQ is a better predictor of multiple-offense delinquents (as
officially recorded) rather than delinquency in general. Since self-reportsurveys typically reveal less serious and less repetitive instances of de-linquency (see Elliott and Ageton, 1980), this measure of delinquency
may be less sensitive to the effects of IQ than official indices. It is alsopossible to postulate that adolescents with high IQs have the cunningto conceal their delinquent acts on a self-report questionnaire. This

68 theories of delinquency
possibility would also reduce the connection between IQ and
delinquency.
Hirschi and Hindelang conclude that after the initial popularity of
IQ as a cause of criminality, subsequent research failed to support theexistence of a consistent relationship between the two variables. Atthe same time, sociological theories began to dominate the literature
on delinquency, and these theories, ostensibly , have ignored IQ as a causal
factor. In actuality, Hirschi and Hindelang argue that recent research
has established a consistent eight-point IQ difference between delin-
quents (presumably official delinquents) and nondelinquents, a differ-
ence they argue is too large to be ignored. Furthermore, they arguethat many sociological theories implicitly recognize the importance of
IQ on delinquency, but for different reasons, especially those theorieswhich focus on class-based strains and conflicts.
Hirschi and Hindelang do not attribute any direct effects of IQ on
delinquency. Instead, like Gordon, they suggest an indirect effect, espe-cially via the school system and the juvenile’s ability to function well inthat arena of competition.
1 Juveniles with low IQs do poorly in school,
become discouraged and develop a negative attitude toward schoolwork,and search elsewhere for acceptance and activity. More and more, “ac-ceptable” alternatives such as work become unavailable to these youth,
leaving unacceptable choices, such as delinquency, as more likely (see
also, Wilson and Herrnstein, 1985:166–172). This is a far cry from Gordon’s
race and heredity theories, and it allows for a host of intervening factors
connecting the influence of the low IQ to delinquency.
Furthermore, a consideration of the mutual effects of IQ, academic
performance and ability, peer associations, perceived labeling by teach-ers, parents, and peers, school alienation, and perceived academic and
employment opportunities on a self-report measure of delinquency ledMenard and Morse ( 1984) to conclude that IQ does indirectly influence
delinquency, through academic abilities, but only mildly. Basically, theyfind that peer associations and school practices with respect to academicabilities are more directly associated with delinquent behavior and that
the IQ-delinquency connection has “weak support” (p. 1375).
Other research maintains that the IQ–school performance–delin-
quency connection should add more variables (Ward and Tittle, 1994 ).
Specifically, Ward and Tittle suggest that school performance

psychological theories 69
contributes to attitudes toward school, which, in turn, have a more
direct effect on delinquency. Overall, however, their conclusion is similarto that of other researchers on this topic, namely, that IQ has a rela-
tively weak impact on delinquency, even indirectly through school-
related variables (pp. 206–208).
An investigation of the contributing factors to delinquency, as
measured by police contacts, among a sample of 800 African-American
youth in Philadelphia also revealed an indirect connection betweenIQ and delinquency, but only for males (Denno, 1985). Among fe-
males no connection between IQ and delinquency was found. Theindirect connection between IQ and male delinquency involved aca-demic achievement as the mediating variable. Among both sexes, the
primary precursor to delinquency was disciplinary problems in school,
but this factor was not connected to IQ among girls.
The indirect relationship between IQ and delinquency, through school
achievement, seems plausible, and has some theoretical support. However,empirical attempts to test this relationship have failed to identify strongand consistent support for the hypothesis. Thus, while the hypothesized
indirect connection between IQ and delinquency more than likely does
exist, the force of the relationship is relatively weak and more operativefor some juveniles than for others.
Evaluation The history of research on the relationship between IQ
and delinquency shows an uneven pattern. The original studies claimed
to demonstrate a consistently strong inverse relationship between the
two variables, such that those with low IQs had higher rates ofdelinquency. With the introduction of more reliable measures of IQ,
the strength of the association between IQ and delinquency was
reduced to insignificance. This conclusion was reinforced by theintroduction of self-report studies of delinquency, which have
consistently yielded lower levels of association with IQ than official
measures of delinquency. More recently, analyses have begun to resurrectthe importance of IQ in the explanation of delinquency, although the
bulk and persuasiveness of these arguments rest with official measures
of delinquency.
In a field with as few absolutes as the subject of juvenile delinquency,
sweeping conclusions either for or against the validity of a theoretical

70 theories of delinquency
position, such as the inverse relationship between IQ and delinquency,
should be greeted with caution. It is probably true that many students ofdelinquency have “thrown the baby out with the bathwater,” so to speak,
with respect to the influence of IQ on delinquency. The issue has fre-
quently assumed racial, even moral, overtones and has thus been shroudedwith emotional judgments. This situation has tended to obscure the fac-
tual elements of the studies that have been conducted.
The relatively moderate conclusions reached by more recent analyses
must be carefully weighed for two reasons: ( 1) they are largely based
on official measures of delinquency, which might reflect the tendency
of those with low intellect to be caught more often than others; and(2) they are based on a number of assumptions concerning IQ that are
still unresolved. Two of these assumptions are that IQ scores are con-stant over time and experience, and that IQ scores are culturally unbi-ased measures of native intellect. Although Gordon tends to deny that
these factors influence the results, which indicate a low IQ-high de-
linquency correlation, and Hirschi and Hindelang acknowledge theexistence of doubt, they all nevertheless brush the issues aside and de-
termine that the case is settled. Suffice it to say that the validity and
reliability of IQ scores are still in question, and any attempt to dealwith the connection between IQ and delinquency must account for
these questions.
The Psychiatric-Psychoanalytic Approach
Specific Assumptions The field of psychiatry is quite broad,
encompassing several different orientations and approaches to an
understanding of human personalities. One of these psychiatricperspectives is referred to as the psychoanalytic perspective. Although
derived from a single source, the seminal teachings of Sigmund Freud,
it has developed different orientations, which can lead to different causalexplanations of delinquency (Feldman, 1969).
2
The psychoanalytic approach received wide support in the delin-
quency literature and in treatment programs for several decades; althoughin the 1970s it appeared to be losing adherents, it survived, particularly
in modified neo-Freudian form. The basic assumptions of the

psychological theories 71
psychoanalytic approach to delinquency include the following points:
(1) each person (presumably, other than the severely retarded) grows
and develops in stages, particularly in stages which focus on sexual de-
velopment; ( 2) in some cases, and for a variety of specific reasons, ab-
normalities occur that create conflict within a person’s developing
personality, usually at an early age (preadolescence); ( 3) these conflicts
arise generally from the interplay between instinctual drives and soci-etal restraints; ( 4) the conflicts, and the specific reasons for their devel-
opment, become painful to the individual’s awareness and are pushed
into the realm of the unconscious; and ( 5) attempts to handle the painful
conflicts are developed within the personality in the form of defense
mechanisms, and these mechanisms can lead to abnormal personality
patterns, of which delinquency is one behavioral manifestation.
key concepts
Unconscious The concept of the unconscious is essential to psycho-
analysis. By the unconscious, Freud referred to that which was repressed
but ultimately capable of becoming conscious, although not always in
ordinary ways (S. Freud, 1927).
Id, Ego, Superego According to Freud, all people have three personal-
ity components, called the id, the ego, and the superego. Essentially,the id refers to the basic instinctual drives and motivations of humans,
the “passionate” aspect of the human psyche. An element of the id is thelibido, the constellation of sexual drives and energies. The ego assumes
the role of regulating the id’s potentially damaging impulses. The ego
represents “reason and sanity” within the personality. The superego isthe individual’s inner restraints, derived from societal norms and the
fear of sanctions. It is equated with the human conscience, the sense
of guilt for perceived or contemplated transgressions (S. Freud, 1920,
1927,1930; A. Freud, 1935).
Oedipus Complex Among several conflicts that develop during the
process of sexual growth, one of the most significant, according toFreud, is the Oedipus complex. The term refers to the one-sided ri-
valry a son feels with his father for the attention of his mother, which
develops in the second or third year of life. For Freud, the resolutionof the oedipal conflict determined the development of the socially
restraining superego (S. Freud, 1927); failure to resolve this conflict could,

72 theories of delinquency
however, lead to serious personality and behavioral disorders. While
many of these ideas were known and utilized in psychiatry before Freud,the terminology and the influence of the psychoanalytic approach in
the delinquency literature are attributable largely to the work of Freud
and twentieth-century psychoanalytic studies.
Discussion Two conclusions can be drawn from the foregoing
discussion: ( 1) that delinquency is symptomatic of underlying conflicts (often
unconscious) and emotional stress, and ( 2) that these conflicts and stresses
can be compared to a disease , which, if untreated, will become
progressively worse. These two conclusions regarding delinquency are
predominant in the psychoanalytic literature.
Franz Alexander and William Healy ( 1935) offer an example of
the symbolic nature of delinquency when they conclude in a par-ticular case that the real motivation behind a juvenile’s repeated thefts
was a repressed sexual desire for his mother. To these psychiatrists,
the conflicts over a forbidden sexual object were so painful that steal-ing, as a “lesser crime,” took the place of the forbidden sexual de-
sires. In another instance, August Aichhorn (1925 ) relates the account
of a 17-year-old who repeatedly stole denatured alcohol from his
father’s carpenter shop and urinated into the empty bottles, presum-ably to cover up the thefts. Aichhorn concluded from his analysis of
the case that the urination was probably a symbolic way of strikingback at a father whom the boy perceived as a rival for the affections
of a young stepmother. Another psychoanalyst, Kate Friedlander
(1947), relates the history of a 7-year-old antisocial boy who was
constantly involved in fights with other children, cruelty to animals,
exhibitionism in front of adults, property destruction, and truancy.
After an extensive analysis of the boy’s life and his family relation-ships, Friedlander concluded that the antisocial behavior was a reac-
tion to an unconscious oedipal conflict with the boy’s father and to
an imperfect superego.
The conception of delinquency as the outward manifestation of a
disease is advocated by many proponents of psychoanalysis. WilliamHealy and Augusta Bronner ( 1936), for example, compare delinquency
and tuberculosis. Just as fever may be a symptom of TB, delinquency
is a symptom of psychological conflicts and illnesses. Similarly, Aichhorn

psychological theories 73
(1925) argues that delinquency is the disease and the “dissocial” behavior
of a delinquent is the outward sign of the disease. To complete this
analogy, Aichhorn argues that there are two kinds of delinquency, la-
tent and manifest. Latent delinquency refers to potential delinquency,
the situation Aichhorn refers to as a disease. Manifest delinquency re-fers to “overt bad behavior” ( 1925:41).
Explicit in the distinction between latent and manifest delinquency
is a recognition of the connection between predisposing, underlyingconditions and environmental stimuli needed to transform the poten-
tial behavior problems into actual ones (see also, Alexander and Healy,
1935; Friedlander, 1947).
An example of the interplay between internal and environmental
factors in the psychoanalytic approach to delinquency is provided byRichard Jenkins’ analysis of three behavioral-personality types identi-fied by Lester Hewitt and Jenkins ( 1947). In a study of 500 juveniles
referred to the Michigan Child Guidance Institute, they identified thefollowing problem behaviors: ( 1) overinhibited, shy, seclusive;
(2) unsocialized aggressive and assaultive; and ( 3) socialized delinquent
gang. The last two are clearly delinquent behavior patterns, accordingto the authors, while the first is more of a neurotic behavior pattern.Although some psychoanalytic proponents make a clear distinction
between delinquent and neurotic behavior (Friedlander, 1947), the two
terms have often been used interchangeably in the literature.
Jenkins describes these three behavior patterns in terms of their
psychoanalytically derived personalities. The overinhibited behavior
pattern is referred to as a Type I personality and is characterized as havingan excessive shell of inhibition (superego). The Type II personality
corresponds to the unsocialized aggressive behavior pattern and is char-
acterized by the relative lack of inhibitions, or an underdeveloped su-perego. The Type III personality is associated with the socialized gang
delinquent or “pseudo-social” person and is characterized by a dual
superego configuration. In this individual there is a normal superegowith respect to fellow gang members but an inadequate superego in
regard to others. Out-group members may thus be victimized by this
person who feels no sense of guilt or restraint toward the victim (Hewittand Jenkins, 1947). Thus, the personality configuration of the gang
delinquent depends on the setting in which behavior occurs.

74 theories of delinquency
Although many psychoanalytic explanations of delinquency rec-
ognize environmental factors in the etiology of delinquency, the focus
of attention is on the internal psychological conflicts that the factors
influence.
Evaluation One of the most critical drawbacks of psychoanalytic
theory is the difficulty encountered in attempts to measure key concepts
and to test basic assumptions and specific hypotheses. Concepts suchas “superego,” “id,” “unconscious conflicts,” among others, are, by their
very nature, incapable of being directly observed. Their existence and
influence must be inferred rather than observed through overt means.The inference of “hidden” motives is often made from subjective
techniques, such as dream analysis, hypnosis, and Rorschach tests. Since
these techniques are largely subjective, they are susceptible to greatvariations in interpretation (Hakeem, 1957–58; Waldo and Dinitz, 1967).
The field of psychotherapy thus becomes based more on art than onscience.
In lieu of using objective measurements of concepts, psychoana-
lysts often use analogies to illustrate a point, such as a connection be-tween various parts of the personality. Freud, for example, comparedthe connection between the id and the ego to that of the relationship
between a horse and its rider. The horse (id) is stronger, but the rider
(ego) is more intelligent and able to control and guide the potentiallydangerous impulses of the horse. Sometimes, however, the horse is able
to assume command over the rider, just as the id is sometimes able to
overcome the ego (S. Freud, 1927). In another example, Aichhorn
likened the relationship between the superego and the ego to a radio.
The superego is the societal broadcast (radio), while the ego is the
receiver and interpreter of social messages (Aichhorn, 1925).
All of these concepts are to be interpreted as metaphors. While
metaphors can be very enlightening, they can also be misleading,particularly when they are interpreted literally rather than as figuresof speech, and when not supported with empirical evidence. Most
of the literature documenting a connection between psychoana-
lytic concepts and delinquency is based on detailed examinationsof a few case histories. A disturbing element in these analyses is that
they start from a presumed consequence—delinquency—and

psychological theories 75
proceed to develop an elaborate explanation of why the event oc-
curred, or what the behavior really meant, by using essentially an-ecdotal evidence. In short, the connection between unconscious
conflicts and repressed experiences and delinquency is tautological
or circular; that is, the effect (delinquency) is taken as evidence of
the presumed cause (unconscious personality conflicts).
Besides the use of anecdotal and analogous evidence and tauto-
logical explanations of delinquency, the psychoanalytic approach hasbeen criticized for its strong emphasis on early childhood experiences
rather than current situations in the explanation of behavior (Parsons,
1954; Cohen, 1966; Clinard and Meier, 1979). A basic tenet of the so-
ciological position is that people act in accordance with their perceived
role expectations (Goffman, 1961; Inkeles, 1964). Roles are attached to
the positions and situations people occupy, and these positions can vary
widely. Of course, some sociologists, for example Talcott Parsons (1954 ),
find psychoanalytic concepts to be somewhat useful in the explana-tion of human behavior, such as aggression. Also, Albert Cohen ( 1955)
incorporates psychoanalytic terms into a largely sociological explana-
tion of delinquency (see Chapter 6).
Even though psychoanalysis emphasizes early childhood influences,
it does not fail to recognize the effects of environmental factors onpersonality and behavior. The major focus of attention in psychoanalysis,
however, is on the internal mechanisms of the mind as these are influ-enced and developed early in life. As such, this theory is most aptly
applied to small numbers of delinquents who truly do have personality
problems. To the extent that these factors are stressed, the utility ofthe psychoanalytic position for an understanding of delinquency in
general can be questioned.
General Personality Characteristics
Specific Assumptions In many ways, the assumptions of the
general personality approach to delinquency are similar to those of
psychoanalysis. Typically proponents of the personality trait approachassume that delinquency is a manifestation of underlying conflicts within
the individual’s psychological framework. Unconscious drives and

76 theories of delinquency
motives and analogous imageries, however, are not part of the general
personality perspective, in contrast to the psychoanalytic approach.
Second, and also similar to psychoanalysis, it is assumed that the
genesis of one’s personality is in childhood, although some of the pro-
ponents of this approach recognize the influence of ongoing life ex-periences in the development of personality characteristics.
A third assumption of the general personality perspective is that a
specific trait, or a coherent set of traits, characterizes a person’s generaloutlook on life and consequently his or her overall behavior.
Finally, it is assumed that a “negative” consequence, such as
delinquency, must be preceded by a “negative” cause. Those per-
sonality traits that are characteristic of delinquents, therefore, areconsidered aberrant. This assumption is also similar to that of psy-
choanalysis, although the specific nature of the “disease” is not al-
ways explained. Instead, it is assumed that negative or abnormalpersonality traits act in a general way to produce delinquency.
key concept
Core Personality The general personality trait approach to delinquency
is rather straightforward. There are few entangled pathways that mustall converge to produce delinquency. One is delinquent because of
who he is—a delinquent “kind of person” (Cohen, 1966). This per-
spective is focused on the general concept of the core personality ; that is,
the delinquent, like others, is seen as possessing a dominant, overridingset of values and attitudes that guide his behavior. As will be demon-
strated below, dependence on the existence of a core personality amongdelinquents has often caused problems of interpretation and under-
standing. Nevertheless, the concept remains a vital component of this
approach and should be so recognized.
Discussion The predominant view within the general personality
perspective is that delinquents are disturbed, but very seldom
psychotic. Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck, for example, concluded from
their comparison of 500 delinquents and a matched sample of
nondelinquents that less than 1 percent of the delinquents could be
characterized as psychotic, although 1.6 percent of the nondelinquents
were thus classified (Glueck and Glueck, 1950). In another controlled

psychological theories 77
study, William Healy and Augusta Bronner ( 1936) compared the
psychological characteristics of 105 delinquents (who had been
referred to child guidance clinics) and 105 sibling nondelinquents.
Their conclusion was that less than 7 percent of the delinquents were
mildly psychotic, as compared with none of the controls.
The Healy and Bronner study is also known for the conclusion that
91 percent of the delinquents were unhappy and discontented with their
lives or emotionally disturbed. In contrast, only 13 percent of the control
siblings were so characterized ( 1936). In terms of personality characteris-
tics, the delinquents were variously described as jealous, feeling personally
inadequate, and guilt ridden. While this study has been used to demon-strate a strong link between personality characteristics and delinquency,
there are some methodological problems that tend to cast doubt on its
validity: ( 1) the personality differences between the delinquents and the
nondelinquents were noted by a clinical staff of psychiatrists and psycholo-
gists; ( 2) the staff had much greater opportunity to observe and analyze the
delinquents because they were clients (or patients) at the clinic; ( 3) the
staff of the clinics knew the identity of the delinquents and the nondel-inquents (Sutherland and Cressey, 1978). In short, the striking personality
differences between the delinquents and nondelinquents could have been
as much a result of the expectations (even though unintended) of the psy-
chiatrically trained observers as a result of basic personality differences be-
tween the two groups.
A more recent analysis compared personal and social characteris-
tics of a small (N = 31) collection of incarcerated delinquents with a
like number of “nondelinquents” (Lewis et al., 1987). The two samples
were matched relative to age, sex, social class, and race/ethnicity, a
procedure which would tend to emphasize the influence of personal
variables on delinquency. An examination of differences between thetwo samples located few neurological differences, but the delinquents
were more often classified as having auditory hallucinations and para-
noid thoughts. Overall, however, the factor which most clearly differ-entiated the two sets of juveniles was the presence of violence and
abuse in the homes of the delinquents. Thus, while some psychiatric
differences between the two samples were observed, the abusive at-mosphere of the home and family emerged as the strongest indicant of
delinquency.

78 theories of delinquency
Beyond the establishment of quantitative differences in personal-
ity characteristics between delinquents and nondelinquents, research
in this area has attempted to specify those personality traits that par-
ticularly distinguish delinquents. There have been several reviews of
these efforts and they generally demonstrate inconsistencies and diffi-culties in identifying a coherent “personality type” among delinquents.
Walter Bromberg ( 1953), for example, listed 14 identifiable personality
traits of delinquents including aggressiveness, emotional instability,
immaturity, egocentricity, lack of ethics or inhibitions, suggestibility,
and passivity. Not only is this list rather long, but it includes some pa-
tently contradictory traits, such as aggressiveness and passiveness. Al-though it may be true that contradictory personality traits are present
in different delinquents, a general theory of delinquency based on that
fact would have little predictive power.
Another review of the personality trait literature covered 113 com-
parisons of delinquents (and criminals) and nondelinquents using 30
personality tests (Schuessler and Cressey, 1950). In only 42 percent of
the comparisons were any significant differences found. Furthermore,
there was no evidence that any particular personality inventory or
trait best identified delinquents or criminals.
The Schuessler and Cressey review was updated by Gordon Waldo
and Simon Dinitz ( 1967). In addition, the Waldo-Dinitz review assessed
the research according to its methodological characteristics, such as samplesize, the use of control groups, and the consideration of other variables
which might also influence criminality. In contrast to the earlier review,
Waldo and Dinitz concluded that 81 percent of the post- 1950 studies
differentiated delinquents (criminals) from nondelinquents. They fur-
ther noted that the differences between their conclusion and that of
Schuessler and Cressey lay mainly in the greater sophistication of person-ality tests developed between 1950 and 1967. In particular, Waldo and
Dinitz singled out “objective tests” as better discriminators between of-fenders and nonoffenders than performance tests or projective tests.
The objective personality test that Waldo and Dinitz selected as
the most reliable was the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory(MMPI). The results of the use of the MMPI in distinguishing delin-quents and other offenders from nonoffenders are rather impressive,
particularly for the psychopathic deviation (Pd) subscale. Of the 29

psychological theories 79
reviewed instances in which the Pd scale of the MMPI was used, it
significantly discriminated offenders from nonoffenders in 28 cases
(Waldo and Dinitz, 1967). The developers of the inventory, Starke
Hathaway and Elio Monachesi, and others have applied it to thousandsof juvenile delinquents and nondelinquents with consistent discrimi-natory results, again mostly with the Pd subscale (Hathaway and
Monachesi, 1963).
Another personality explanation of delinquency is commonly
known as “interpersonal maturity” (Sullivan et al., 1957). According to
the proponents of this explanation, it is possible for people to attain a
maturity in social or interpersonal skills in the form of seven progres-sive stages or levels of development, each one being associated with a
“core personality.”
Although no specific names were originally given to these per-
sonality levels, later modifications and discussions of the theory beganto isolate specific descriptive components, in the form of subtypes, of
those personality levels within which most officially defined delinquentswere located, Levels 2 to 4. In these classifications, those in maturity
Level 2 are seen as asocial, aggressive, and power oriented, those in Level
3 are most often identified as conformist to the rules of delinquent
groups, and those in Level 4 are typically called neurotic (Warren, 1970;
Palmer, 1974). Since these three maturity levels represent close to 90
percent of officially identified delinquents (Warren, 1970; Palmer 1974),
it may be surmised that the personality of the delinquent is not only
“immature,” but simultaneously aggressive, passive, and neurotic.
A Note on Psychopathy Perhaps no other criminological term exerts
more interest and fascination from the public than “psychopath.” The
term developed in the latter part of the nineteenth century to refer toaggressive criminals who acted impulsively with no apparent reason or
goal (Fink, 1938). Since that time, it has been used widely in the mass
media, often referring to murders such as those depicted in Alfred
Hitchcock’s Psycho. Clinically, however, the term has referred to a veritable
host of attitudinal and behavioral characteristics. Over 200 terms have
been used to describe people and to link them as a result of thesedescriptions with psychopathy, and of these it can be said that 55 are
generally agreed on as describing the psychopathic personality (Sutherland

80 theories of delinquency
and Cressey, 1978). Furthermore, several synonyms have appeared in the
literature and in clinical manuals, particularly “sociopath” and “antisocial
personality,” which add to the confusion.
While it seems that such a wide range of attributes cannot produce a
meaningful entity, there are some particularly recurring themes that pro-vide a limited degree of intuitive understanding of the concept. Themes
such as impulsiveness, inability to relate to others, inability to learn or profit
from experiences, lack of guilt or remorse for harmful behavior, insensitiv-ity for pain of others (and even relative insensitivity to pain experienced
by oneself), and repeated transgressions are often used in scholarly treatises
on the subject (McCord and McCord, 1956; Robins, 1966; Cleckley, 1976;
Eysenck, 1977). The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ( 1994) utilizes these characteristics,
and a few others, such as irresponsibility, in its clinical definition of theantisocial personality, or sociopath among adults.
Some investigators wish to arrange psychopathy on a scale (Robins,
1966; Cleckley, 1976). Robins, for example, selected 19 life circumstances
as the symptomatic criteria for identifying sociopathy, including the use
of aliases, a “wild” adolescence, suicide attempts, and financial depen-
dency. Arbitrarily, Robins decided that anyone whose behavior fit any 5
of the 19 symptoms would be under consideration as a sociopath. Other
criteria, unspecified, were thus apparently utilized in arriving at a finalconclusion that one had the “disease” of sociopathy.
Whether students of psychopathy regard the concept as an illness,
almost all associate it with criminality. There is disagreement, however,
over whether psychopathy or sociopathy pertains to juveniles as wellas adults. On the one hand, Lewis Yablonsky ( 1970) argues that core
members of violent gangs are so psychopathic and emotionally disturbedthat they cannot even form primary groups. He thus refers to thesetypes of gangs as “near groups.” In addition, Hans and Sybil Eysenck
(1978) are somewhat emphatic on the point that psychopathy is in-
versely related to age (that is, psychopathy is reduced as one gets older),
although they cite some literature that is unable to find psychopathic
personality differences among adolescents.
On the other hand, Robins ( 1966) is equally convinced that soci-
opathy is an adult disease and that juveniles can only be consideredpotentially sociopathic. The behavior that might be regarded as

psychological theories 81
sociopathic in an adult is only symptomatic of sociopathy among juve-
niles. Moreover, the clinical definition of sociopathy or the antisocialpersonality seems to associate the condition with adulthood. Those chil-
dren who are impulsive, self-centered, and apparently guiltless are of-
ten referred to as having a “tension-discharge disorder” or an“impulse-ridden personality” (Hare, 1970:5), or as having “conduct
problems” (White et al., 1990; Maughan, 1993; Robins, 1993), as
opposed to a sociopathic personality. Consistent with this view is theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which reserves
the term “antisocial personality disorder” for adults, as discussed ear-
lier. For those under age 18, however, the term used to describe these
personality characteristics is “conduct disorder.” ( 1994:645–646).
Whether the technical term “psychopath” or “sociopath,” or what-
ever term is considered appropriate, it is important to remember that heuse of such terminology can damage an individual’s life. Of course, we
want to be able to predict future offenders, especially ones prone to
harm others in a consistent and debilitating way. But we also want toeliminate, or reduce, “false positives,” that is, those identified as having a
trait when they do not have it. We should also be wary of creating prob-
lems when they do not already exist, that is, of labeling people in waysthat they become what we label them to be (see Chapter 9). Similarly,
specifically when looking at juveniles, we must be aware that sometimeswhat we might label psychopathic behavior among adults is somethingthat juveniles are “trying out,” so to speak, and may well outgrow as
they mature. As one scholar on the subject put it, “Psychopathy is, by
definition, not something individuals grow out of ( sic). Adolescence, by
definition, is. It is important that we do not confuse one with the other”
(Steinberg, 2002:56). Added to this view is the growing awareness that
psychopathic characteristics may well vary by gender, with males being
more violence prone than females (Salekin et al., 2001). If clinical char-
acteristics of the psychopathic personality can vary by gender, perhapsother variations can occur by other differences, such as race and ethnicity,and these variations could further cloud the issue of who is psychopathic
and what could or should be done to correct the situation.
Evaluation The nature of the personality explanations of delinquency
allows for more direct testing of assumptions than is true of psychoanalytic

82 theories of delinquency
theories. Indeed, the literature on this topic is much more quantified
and empirical than the psychoanalytic literature. Thus, the validity of theassumptions and concepts can be more confidently assessed. This evaluation
focuses on two major concerns relative to the validity of personality
theories: ( 1) the problem of personality classification and ( 2) the
documented relationship of personality patterns to delinquency.
The idea that people have a dominating, “core” personality can
sometimes lead to forced judgments and, ultimately, to misclassification.For example, several attempts have been made to test the validity of
the I-level explanation of delinquency, and a recurring problem has
been interjudge agreement on just what a person’s personality is (But-ler and Adams, 1966; Jesness, 1971; Beker and Heyman, 1972). Inven-
tories or paper and pencil tests are quite unlikely to capture the coreidentity of people. It is difficult, even with in-depth interviews, tomeasure the variability of thought, mood, and behavior which people
experience and express as they go through their daily lives.
The problem in adequately measuring and classifying one’s per-
sonality is indicated in the numerous personality types and subscalesthat have been related to delinquency, some of which are contradic-
tory (see, for example, Block et al., 1988). With so many dimensions
and attributes assigned to the criminal anddelinquent personality, much
less to human personality in general, it is hard to imagine that anyone characteristic or coherent set of attributes can accurately sum-marize a person’s feelings and relationships with others. Perhaps
misclassifications, or incomplete classifications, are the reasons for
changes in the personality types of delinquents (Butler and Adams,1966; Beker and Heyman, 1972). Of course, changes in personality
can occur because of treatment interventions. Indeed, such changeis at the heart of most treatment programs. But noted changes in per-sonality classifications do occur in the absence of specific treatment.
Robins’ longitudinal examination of sociopathy ( 1966) noted that 39
percent of those diagnosed as sociopathic improved or “remitted”
(changed, presumably) with age and with no apparent organized treat-
ment, other than perhaps the help and guidance of ministers, friends,
and relatives. Large rates of change, with no programmatic treatment,were also noted for those diagnosed as psychotic and alcoholic. Clearly,
such changes in personality cannot be supportive of a permanent core

psychological theories 83
personality concept. Nor does such evidence provide trust in the
accuracy of original diagnoses.
Even if core personalities existed and could be accurately identi-
fied, the relationship between personality differences and delinquencyis far from con-clusive. The demonstration of personality or emotionaldifferences between delinquents and nondelinquents by Healy and
Bronner has already been critiqued and found methodologically ques-
tionable. The two literature reviews mentioned earlier reached some-what different conclusions regarding the relationship between personality
and delinquency. The review that was more favorable to the signifi-
cance of personality differences among delinquents (Waldo and Dinitz,1967), however, was supportive only of personality differences measured
by objective tests. Furthermore, Waldo and Dinitz note that the con-trol study of the Gluecks (mentioned earlier) concluded that delinquentswere more assertive, hostile, defiant, suspicious, and less cooperative than
nondelinquents, using the Rorschach test as a measure. But they did not
note that the Gluecks also found that nondelinquents were more neu-
rotic than delinquents and that, overall, nearly half of the delinquents
had “no conspicuous pathology,” as compared with nearly 56 percent
of the nondelinquents (Glueck and Glueck, 1950).
The two specific examples of personality explanations discussed
earlier, MMPI and interpersonal maturity or I-level, have also been
questioned regarding their connection with delinquency. Differencesbetween delinquents and nondelinquents on the Pd subscale of the
MMPI, for example, are often statistically significant, but numerically small.
The scoring procedure of the inventory is such that a difference in re-sponses to 4 items out of 50 between delinquents and nondelinquents
would give statistically significant results. Considering the wording of theitems (“I like school”; “My sex life is satisfactory”), such small differ-ences in responses are hardly indicative of basic personality differences
(Waldo and Dinitz, 1967; Vold and Bernard, 1986). Furthermore, since
the Pd subscale was originally developed from “asocial” young patients,
many of whom were delinquent, and since one of the items on the
subscale is “I have never been in trouble with the law” (Hathaway and
Monachesi, 1963; Waldo and Dinitz, 1967), it is not surprising that in-
vestigators, using this subscale, have often found significant differences
between delinquents and nondelinquents. Some have noted, moreover,

84 theories of delinquency
that much of the relationship that exists between delinquency and
MMPI scores can be attributed to exaggerated responses, if such ma-nipulations are not controlled (Rathus and Siegel, 1980). Finally, the
MMPI comparisons often yield greater differences among various de-linquent populations than between delinquents and nondelinquents(Waldo and Dinitz, 1967; see also, Tennenbaum, 1977:227–228).
The interpersonal maturity explanation of delinquency has attracted
a great deal of attention in treatment programs (Jesness, 1971; Palmer,
1974). Its relationship to delinquency, however, has not been estab-
lished, nor has it even been tested systematically (Gibbons, 1970; Beker
and Heyman, 1972 ).
Damaging to this theory is the difficulty in connecting I-level classi-
fications with either traditional psychiatric concepts or with similar per-sonality conceptualizations (Butler and Adams, 1966 ). In fact, an attempt
to assess the construct validity of “interpersonal maturity” characteristics
among institutionalized male delinquents in California failed to confirm
“maturity” as an important characteristic of the I-level classification of de-linquents. While there was a slight positive association between maturity
level and I-level classification (as predicted), its importance was minus-
cule and ranked far below other variables, such as verbal aptitude, reason-ing ability, and concern over right and wrong (Austin, 1975 ).
Along with all these shortcomings is the problem of cause and effect.
The vast majority of delinquency research informed by personality theo-ries and concepts has been conducted with officially defined delinquents,
mostly those who have been referred to court or institutionalized. Conse-quently, it is possible that whatever personality differences have been de-tected in these studies between delinquents and nondelinquents may stem
from the effects of identifying juveniles as delinquents.
The overall assessment of personality theories is that their validity
is not very strong. Although personality differences between delinquentsand nondelinquents have been noted, these differences are often nu-
merically small, inconsistent in meaning, and possibly influenced by theeffects of labeling juveniles as delinquents.
More recent studies address some of these issues by incorporating
alternative measures of personality and by using self-report indices ofdelinquency. Some utilize multidimensional scales and refer to the
“temperament” of individuals. Windle ( 1992), for example, used a

psychological theories 85
54-item temperament scale which identified 10 attributes, including such
characteristics as sleep and eating habits, overall energy and activity lev-
els, distractibility, and persistence. Responses to these items were corre-
lated with self-report delinquency items, and measures of depression,
among a sample of 975 high school students (who were mostly white,
middle-class youth). Those who reported irregular sleeping and eating
habits, high energy levels, high levels of distraction, low levels of taskorientation, and so on, were considered as having a “difficult tempera-ment.” Using this scheme, Windle found significant correlations between
difficult temperament and high levels of delinquency and depression. In
addition, however, Windle found significant associations between diffi-cult temperament and low levels of peer and familial emotional support.
Furthermore, both temperament and family support exhibited signifi-
cant and independent effects on delinquency and depression. Peer sup-port yielded an interesting pattern with delinquency in that high peer
support was associated with high levels of delinquency (pp. 9–13).
These results suggest that the connection between personality fac-
tors and delinquency is neither simple nor direct. Rather, these relation-ships involve a complex pattern of general psychopathology which can
operate independently of, or in conjunction with, environmental fac-tors such as peer and familial support (see also, Jones and Heaven, 1998;
Loeber et al., 1998; Caspi et al., 2005).
The interest in personality features and delinquency is more and more
being couched in terms of general individual characteristics, but not nec-
essarily a “core” personality, which contribute to delinquency early in life,
throughout adolescence and into adulthood. An emerging theme is theexistence of such personality traits as impulsivity, lack of control, hyperac-
tivity, and so on, which distinguish delinquent behavior from
nondelinquency (Tremblay, 1992; Caspi et al., 1994). In fact, the life course
perspective is now applied to an understanding of personality characteris-
tics in general, whether or not these lead to delinquency (Caspi, 1998 ).
Continued research in this area suggests that personality traits, or
clusters of traits, often change over the life course. For example, a longi-tudinal study of delinquency among males in Pittsburgh (the Pittsburgh
Youth Study) concluded that different personality traits “predicted”persistent delinquency among males at different ages. As an example,
construct labeled “conduct problems” was significantly related to

86 theories of delinquency
delinquency among young offenders (first-graders). A combination of
“hyperactivity/impulsivity” and “inattention” predicted delinquencyamong fourth graders, while “interpersonal callousness” predicted de-
linquency among males in the seventh grade (Pardini et al., 2006). An
interesting review of the literature on personality and change concluded
that the impact of personality traits was better applied to development
over the life course. This analysis concluded that personality changes
can and do occur, especially in young adulthood, and even throughthe forties. Personality configurations remain fairly stable from age three
through adolescence, and these patterns apply equally to males and
females (Caspi et al., 2005:466–468). Although this review did not spe-
cifically focus on delinquency, the authors noted that personality con-
figurations do have impacts on activities and events in one’s life through
the life course, including peer relationships, educational and occupa-tional success, parenting skills, and health and longevity. Thus, by im-
plication, these conclusions may be applied to delinquency, and they
seem to be more consistent with a life-course perspective. Personalityconstructs, in interaction with environmental and sometimes genetic
factors, can have an impact on delinquency. However, personality
constructs can and do change over one’s lifetime, although perhapsnot so much during adolescence. Thus, the view that a “core” person-
ality emerges early in life and dominates one’s thought processes and
behavioral patterns throughout a lifetime is becoming more and moredifficult to defend (see Chapter 8 for more discussion on the general
theory of crime and Chapter 12 for more discussion on the general
trait versus the life-course views of criminality).
A meta-analysis of personality scales and their association with an-
tisocial behavior, or ASB, (adults and juveniles) concluded that two per-sonality constructs, agreeableness and conscientiousness, or the lackthereof, were most consistently related to ASB (Miller and Lynam, 2001).
However, the authors’ attempts to connect their findings with currenttheoretical viewpoints on delinquency causation yielded conflictingconclusions. On the one hand, for example, they concluded that the
existence of at least two personality factors having significant relationships
with ASB refuted the general theory of crime notion posited byGottfredson and Hirschi ( 1990). Additional evidence for this view comes
from a study by Lynam et al. ( 2001) that some personality dimensions,

psychological theories 87
such as impulsiveness, have greater effects on criminality in lower-income
areas than in wealthier neighborhoods. On the other hand, Miller andLynam maintain that personality characteristics are heritable—around
40percent (p. 784)—and relatively stable, factors which would tend to
support the general theory of crime. On the whole, this effort is another
study which yields interesting, but conflicting, results concerning the re-
lationship between personality variables and crime and delinquency.
Personality features indeed do have a relationship with criminality, butthe connection is neither constant nor direct. As they put it, “Rather
than a specific tendency to commit crime per se, what may (emphasis added)
be inherited is a broad disposition to think, feel, and act in certain charac-teristic ways (i.e., personality)” (p. 784).
Some are pursuing the view that there are multiple pathways to
offending, in particular an early path and a later stage of involvementin delinquency (Moffitt, 1993; Simons et al., 1994). A biopsychological
view of these pathways focuses on individual characteristics of earlyoffenders, as opposed to more situational manifestations of delin-quency. Using data from the New Zealand longitudinal study dis-
cussed in Chapter 3, Terrie Moffitt and associates, for example, argue
that youth who show “persistent” signs of antisocial behavior (be-
fore adolescence) are significantly different on neuropsychological
measures, such as verbal and memory abilities, compared to later of-
fenders (Moffitt et al., 1994).
Another longitudinal study examined patterns of hyperactivity, au-
tonomic nervous system functioning (as measured by levels of adrena-line excretion), and delinquency among all male youth living in amiddle-sized city (population approximately 100,000) in Sweden
(Magnusson et al., 1992), and reached a conclusion similar to Moffitt et
al. Data were obtained from teacher evaluations of juveniles at ages 10
and13. Estimates of criminality were generated from police and social
service records of the youth up to age 15. The results of this study
indicate a significant association between delinquency, hyperactivity,and lower levels of adrenaline excretion (pp 290–297). The longitudinal
patterns, however, indicated that there were two sets of associations.In a limited number of cases, delinquency and other antisocial behaviorsappeared early in life and persisted into adulthood. Among these boys
there were high levels of hyperactivity and low levels of adrenaline

88 theories of delinquency
excretion, or “autonomic reactivity.” However, among a slightly larger
number of males, a second pattern emerged. In this case, delinquencyoccurred only during adolescence and ceased by adulthood. In this
situation, the adrenaline excretions were higher than among
nonoffenders. The delinquency of these offenders was thus attributed
to environmental factors, or essentially to variables other than low adrena-
line excretion and hyperactivity (pp. 298–305).
Magnusson et al. offer the interpretation that low autonomic re-
activity, as measured by adrenaline excretion, is an inborn trait whichleads to hyperactivity, which leads to “persistent” criminality in some
cases. This view is similar to the biological component of Eysenck’stheory, discussed in Chapter 3. However, these authors offer other ex-
planations for their findings, which involve environmental assessmentsof delinquency causation. For example, they suggest that one possiblecausal pattern is that low autonomic reactivity may be learned as a result
of inconsistent patterns of discipline and socialization. According tothis view, normal autonomic reactivity depends, at least to a degree,on consistent patterns of socialization in early childhood, even in in-
fancy (pp. 309–310). Or, delinquency may be a result of both biologi-
cal traits and inconsistent patterns of socialization. While these latter
two interpretations are offered as explanations for both situational and
persistent offenders, it would seem more likely that they would ex-
plain situational patterns of delinquency. Furthermore, these authorsassume that negative biological factors may be offset by positive envi-
ronmental factors, thus reducing the risk of delinquency. This conclu-
sion is similar to the conclusions of Moffitt, as discussed in Chapter 3.
Evidence is becoming increasingly clear that “chronic” or repeat of-
fenders, especially aggressive or violent youth, begin displaying delinquentbehaviors or conduct problems at an early point in life, often preadoles-cence, and continue into late adolescence or young adulthood. More-
over, these early beginners usually have a combination of physical,
psychological, and environmental risk factors which separate them fromlate starters and/or one-time offenders (Loeber and Hay, 1994; Thompson
et al., 1996; Bender and Losel, 1997; Raine et al., 1997; Stattin et al., 1997;
Vitelli, 1997; Coie and Dodge, 1998; Loeber et al., 1998).
Added to this picture of multiple pathways to delinquency is the
presence of toxic chemicals and/or metals in the environment. In

psychological theories 89
particular, exposure to lead has been connected with hyperactivity, im-
pulsivity, and eventually delinquency, especially among youth in early tomiddle adolescence (Needleman et al., 1996).
Summary
The traditional view that delinquents, and criminals in general, are pro-
duced from degenerate stock is no longer evident in modern psycho-
logical theories. IQ theories have been modified to include indirect
influences through socialization and school experiences. While the em-phasis on individual differences between delinquents and
nondelinquents remains strong in these theories, there is an increasing
recognition that personality and behavior are complex phenomena.
Nonetheless, the search for a unique set of personal, psychological
antecedents of delinquency continues and remains unfulfilled. The psy-choanalytic approach, once so popular in the literature and so influentialin juvenile courts and institutional settings, has tended to give way to
newer personality images of the delinquent. The contributions of Freud,
his students, and subsequent generations of psychoanalysts will not belost in the search for the psychological roots of delinquency. We will
probably always be mindful of the possibility of underlying, “hidden”
motives of behavior. Newer conceptions of the delinquent personality,however, have focused more on the objective, cognizant meanings of
behavior. But these conceptions have lacked convincing evidence, par-
ticularly when it is argued that a core personality exists which is formedearly and dominates one’s behavior through most of life.
At the same time, few would suggest that juveniles, and adults for
that matter, do not have personalities, as well as values and outlooksthat can influence social relationships. These constructs are probably
variable and malleable, and contingent on social roles and experiences.
They are to be located on a continuum, not dichotomized (Gough,1960). Indeed, many of the theories to be discussed in subsequent
chapters assume, at least implicitly, that attitudes, personalities, and thelike play some role in the translation of external events into individualbehavior. The emphasis in these other theories, however, is on the
external, social antecedents to delinquency.

90 theories of delinquency
Newer lines of inquiry are using longitudinal data, multiple indi-
cators of delinquency or antisocial behavior (such as self-reports, teacher
evaluations, and parental assessments), and are done in consideration
of social and environmental factors. Consequently, the findings and con-
clusions of this research are not as vulnerable to the criticisms of earlierpsychological and biopsychological studies, such as those discussed earlier
in this chapter and in Chapter 3. An encouraging aspect of this research,
furthermore, is the willingness to include environmental conditions on
the personality and/or biological characteristics which are thought to
be major contributors to delinquency (Caspi et al., 1994). That tradi-
tional sociological explanations of delinquency are being
reconceptualized to include individualistic constructs is further indica-
tion of the potential for true interdisciplinary conceptualization and
investigation of the contributions to delinquency.
Not all the investigations into life course patterns of delinquency
contain biopsychological focuses. Sampson and Laub ( 1993), for ex-
ample, have developed a view of life patterns of crime and delinquencywhich essentially focuses on situational and environmental influences
that can have an impact on one’s life and opportunities for conven-
tional and nonconformist paths of behavior (see also, Kaplan et al.,1983:39–44; Huizinga et al., 1991).
Furthermore, as with the research of Magnusson et al., some con-
tend that early and late paths of delinquency can be explained by pat-terns of child-rearing and other parental and familial influences, rather
than by biopsychological factors alone (see also, Patterson et al., 1991;
Simons et al., 1994). Patterns of familial relationships and socialization
practices will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 8. For the mo-
ment, however, it is important to stress that modern psychological and
biopsychological investigations of delinquent and antisocial behaviorare addressing many of the criticisms of earlier studies, and this research
is becoming more interdisciplinary in conceptualization.
Notes
1. A detailed examination of this proposition was provided by John Conger
and Wilbur Miller’s longitudinal analysis of IQ, personality, and official
delinquency in Denver ( 1966). Their analysis, however, indicated that the

psychological theories 91
relationship that exists among IQ, school performance, and delinquency charac-
teristics is neither linear nor simple. IQ, for example, was found to clearly differ-entiate future delinquents from nondelinquents (basically through social adapta-tion, school performance, and so forth) in kindergarten through third grade. Ingrades 1 to 6, however, the importance of IQ as a direct or indirect predictor of
future delinquency diminished in favor of social class status. In grades 7 to 9 both
IQ and social class status combined to explain observed delinquent behavior.
2. It would be impossible to discuss all of the published psychoanalytic stud-
ies of delinquency. Some of the more notable analyses which are not cited else-where in this chapter include Lindner ( 1944), Redl and Wineman ( 1951),
Abrahamsen ( 1952), and Halleck ( 1967, especially Chapters 9 and 10).
References
Abrahamsen, David, 1952, Who Are the Guilty? New York: Rinehard.
Aichhorn, August, 1925, Wayward Youth. Reprinted, New York: Viking,
1965.
Alexander, Franz and William Healy, 1935, Roots of Crime. Reprinted,
Montclair, N.J.: Patterson Smith Reprint, 1969.
Austin, Roy L., 1975, “Construct Validity of I-Level Classification.” Crimi-
nal Justice and Behavior 2:113–129.
Beker, Jerome and Doris S. Heyman, 1972, “A Critical Appraisal of the Califor-
nia Differential Treatment Typology of Adolescent Offenders.” Criminol-
ogy10:3–59.
Bender, Doris and Friedrich Losel, 1997, “Protective and Risk Effects of Peer
Relations and Support on Antisocial Behavior in Adolescents from Multi-Problem Milieus.” Journal of Social Adolescence 20:661–678.
Block, Jack, Jeanne H. Block, and Susan Keyes, 1988, “Longitudinally Fore-
telling Drug Usage in Adolescence: Early Childhood Personality andEnvironmental Precursors.” Child Development 58:336–355.
Block, N. J. and Gerald Dworkin (eds.), 1976, The IQ Controversy. New York:
Pantheon.
Bromberg, Walter, 1953, “American Achievements in Criminology.” Jour-
nal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 47:166–176.
Butler, Edgar W. and Stuart N. Adams, 1966 , “Typologies of Delinquent Girls:
Some Alternative Approaches.” Social Forces 44:401–407.
Caspi, Avshalom, 1998, “Personality Development across the Life Course.”
Chapter 6 in William Damon and Nancy Eisenberg (eds.), q.v.
Caspi, Avshalom, Terrie E. Moffitt, Phil A. Silva, Magda Stouthamer-
Loeber, Robert F. Krueger, and Pamela S. Schmutte, 1994, “Are Some

92 theories of delinquency
People Crime-Prone? Replications of the Personality-Crime Relation-
ship across Countries, Genders, Races, and Methods.” Criminology32:163–195.
Caspi, Avshalom, Brent W. Roberts, and Rebecca L. Shiner, 2005, “Person-
ality Development: Stability and Change.” Annual Review of Psychology56:453–484.
Cleckley, Hervey, 1976, The Mask of Sanity, fifth edition. St. Louis: Mosby.
Clinard, Marshall B. and Robert F. Meier, 1979, The Sociology of Deviant
Behavior, fifth edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Cohen, Albert K., 1955, Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang.
New York: Free Press.
———, 1966, Deviance and Control. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Coie, John D. and Kenneth A. Dodge, 1998, “Aggression and Antisocial Be-
havior.” Chapter 12 in William Damon and Nancy Eisenberg (eds.), q.v.
Conger, John Janeway and Wilbur C. Miller, 1966, Personality, Social Class
and Delinquency. New York: Wiley.
Damon, William and Nancy Eisenberg (eds.), 1998, Handbook of Child
Psychology, fifth edition. Volume Three. New York: Wiley.
Denno, Deborah W., 1985, “Sociological and Human Developmental
Explanations of Crime: Conflict or Consensus.” Criminology 23:711–741.
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM-IV-R, 1994,
fourth edition. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association.
Elliott, Delbert S. and Suzanne S. Ageton, 1980, “Reconciling Race and Class
Differences in Self-Reported and Official Estimates of Delinquency.”American Sociological Review 45:95–110.
Eysenck, H. J., 1977, Crime and Personality, second edition. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Eysenck, H. J. and S. B. G. Eysenck, 1978, “Psychopathy, Personality, and
Genetics.” Pp. 197–223 in R. D. Hare and R. Schalling (eds.), Psycho-
pathic Behavior. New York: Wiley.
Eysenck, H. J. and Leon Kamin, 1981, The Intelligence Controversy.
New York: Wiley.
Feldman, David, 1969, “Psychoanalysis and Crime.” Pp. 433–442 in Donald
R. Cressey and David A. Ward (eds.), Delinquency, Crime and SocialProcess. New York: Harper & Row.
Fink, Arthur E., 1938, Causes of Crime. New York: A. S. Barnes.
Freud, Anna, 1935, Psycho-Analysis for Teachers and Parents. New York:
Emerson Books.
Freud, Sigmund, 1920, A General Introduction to Psycho-Analysis, translated
by Joan Riviere. New York: Liveright, 1935.

psychological theories 93
———, 1927, The Ego and the Id, translated by Joan Riviere. London: Hogarth,
1949.
———, 1930, Civilization and Its Discontents, edited and translated by James
Strachey. New York: Norton, 1961.
Friedlander, Kate, 1947, The Psycho-Analytical Approach to Juvenile Delin-
quency. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Gibbons, Don C., 1970, “Differential Treatment of Delinquents and Inter-
personal Maturity Levels Theory: A Critique.” Social Science Review
44:22–33.
Glueck, Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck, 1950, Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Goddard, H. H., 1912, The Kallikak Family. New York: Macmillan.
———, 1914, Feeble-Mindedness. New York: Macmillan.
Goffman, Erving, 1961, Asylums. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday/Anchor.
Gordon, Robert A., 1976, “Prevalence: The Rare Datum in Delinquency
Measurement and Its Implications for the Theory of Delinquency.”Pp.201–284 in Malcolm Klein (ed.), The Juvenile Justice System. Beverly
Hill, Calif.: Sage.
Gough, Harrison, G., 1960, “Theory and Measurement of Socialization.” Jour-
nal of Consulting Psychology 24:23–30.
Grace, William C. and Mary E. Sweeney, 1986, “Comparisons of the PV Sign
on the WISC-R and WAIS-R in Delinquent Males.” Journal of ClinicalPsychology 42:173–176.
Hakeem, Michael, 1957–58, “A Critique of the Psychiatric Approach to the
Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency.” Social Problems 5:194–205.
Halleck, Seymour, L., 1967, Psychiatry and the Dilemmas of Crime.
New York: Harper & Row.
Hare, Robert D., 1970, Psychopathy. New York: Wiley.
Hathaway, Starke R. and Elio D. Monachesi, 1963, Adolescent Personality
and Behavior. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Haynes, Jack P. and Rodney C. Howard, 1986, “Stability of WISC-R
Scores in a Juvenile Forensic Sample.” Journal of Clinical Psychology42:534–537.
Haynes, Jack P., Rodney C. Howard, and Suzanne M. Haynes, 1986, “Inter-
nal Reliability of the WISC-R with Male Juvenile Delinquents.” Journalof Clinical Psychology 43:496–499.
Healy, William and Augusta F. Bronner, 1936, New Light on Delinquency
and Its Treatment. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Hewitt, Lester E. and Richard L. Jenkins, 1947, Fundamental Patterns of
Maladjustment. Springfield, Ill.: State of Illinois.

94 theories of delinquency
Hirschi, Travis and Michael J. Hindelang, 1977, “Intelligence and Delinquency:
A Revisionist Review.” American Sociological Review 42:571–587.
Hodgins, Sheilagh (ed.), 1993, Mental Disorder and Crime. Newbury Park,
Calif.: Sage.
Huizinga, David, Finn-Aage Esbensen and Anne Wylie Weiher, 1991, “Are There
Multiple Paths to Delinquency?” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminol-
ogy82:83–118.
Inkeles, Alex, 1964, What Is Sociology? Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Jensen, A. R., 1969, “How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achieve-
ment?” Harvard Educational Review 39:1–123.
———, 1980, Bias in Mental Testing. New York: Free Press.
Jesness, Carl F., 1971, “The Preston Typology Study: An Experiment with Differ-
ential Treatment in an Institution.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delin-quency 8:38–52.
Jones, Suzanne P. and Patrick C. L. Heaven, 1998, “Psychological Correlates
of Adolescent Drug-Taking Behavior.” Journal of Adolescence 21:127–134.
Kaplan, Howard B., Cynthia Robbins and Steven S. Martin, 1983, “Toward
the Testing of a General Theory of Deviant Behavior in Longitudinal Per-spective: Patterns of Psychopathology.” Research in Community and Men-tal Health 3:27–65.
Krisberg, Barry and James Austin (eds.), 1978, The Children of Ishmael: Critical
Perspectives on Juvenile Justice. Palo Alto, Calif.: Mayfield.
Lewis, Dorothy Otnow, Jonathan H. Pincus, Richard Lovely, Elinor Spitzer,
and Ernest Moy, 1987, “Biopsychosocial Characteristics of Matched
Samples of Delinquents and Nondelinquents.” Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 26:744–752.
Lindner, Robert, 1944, Rebel without a Cause. New York: Grove Press.
Loeber, Rolf and Dale F. Hay, 1994, “Developmental Approaches to Aggres-
sion and Conduct Problems.” Pp. 488–516 in Michael Rutter and Dale F.
Hay (eds.), Development through Life Course: A Handbook for Clinicians.
Oxford, England: Blackwell Scientific Publications.
Loeber, Rolf, David P. Farrington, Magda Stouthamer-Loeber, Terrie E. Moffitt,
and Avshalom Caspi, 1998, “The Development of Male Offending: Key Find-
ings from the Pittsburgh Youth Study.” Studies in Crime and Crime Pre-
vention 7:141–171.
Lynam, Donald R., Avshalom Caspi, Terrie E. Moffitt, Per-Olof Wikstrom,
Rolf Loeber, and Scott P. Novak, 2001, “The Interaction between Impul-
sivity and Neighborhood Context on Offending: The Effects of Impulsiv-ity are Stronger in Poorer Neighborhoods.” Journal of Abnormal Psychol-ogy109:563–574.

psychological theories 95
Magnusson, David, Britt af Klinteberg, and Hakan Stattin, 1992, “Autonomic
Activity/Reactivity, Behavior, and Crime in a Longitudinal Perspective.”
Pp.287–318 in Joan McCord (ed.), q.v.
Maughan, Barbara, 1993, “Childhood Precursors of Aggressive Offending in
Personality-Disordered Adults.” Pp. 119–139 in Sheilagh Hodgins (ed.), q.v.
McCord, Joan (ed.), 1992, Facts, Frameworks, and Forecasts. New Brunswick,
N.J.: Transaction.
McCord, William and Joan McCord, 1956, Psychopathy and Delinquency.
New York: Grune and Stratton.
Menard, Scott and Barbara J. Morse, 1984, “A Structuralist Critique of the
IQ-Delinquency Hypothesis: Theory and Evidence.” American Journal ofSociology 89:1347–1378.
Miller, Joshua D. and Donald Lynam, 2001, “Structural Models of Personality
and Their Relationship to Antisocial Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review.”Criminology 39:765–795.
Moffitt, Terrie E., 1993, “‘Life-Course-Persistent’ and ‘Adolescent-Lim-
ited’ Antisocial Behavior: A Developmental Taxonomy.” PsychologicalReview 100:674–701.
Moffitt, Terrie E., Donald R. Lynam, and Phil A. Silva, 1994, “Neuropsychologi-
cal Tests Predicting Persistent Male Delinquency.” Criminology 32:277–300.
Murchison, Carl, 1926, Criminal Intelligence. Worcester, Mass.: Clark Uni-
versity Press.
Needleman, Herbert L., Julie A. Reiss, Michael J. Tobin, Gretchen E. Blesecker,
and Joel B. Greenhouse, 1996, “Bone Lead Levels and Delinquent Behav-
ior.” JAMA 275:363–369.
Palmer, Ted, 1974, “The Youth Authority’s Community Treatment Project.”
Federal Probation 38:3–14.
Pardini, Dustin, Jelena Obradovic, and Rolf Loeber, 2006, “Interpersonal
Callousness, Hyperactivity/Impulsivity, Inattention, and Conduct Prob-lems as Precursors to Delinquency Persistence in Boys: A Comparison ofThree Grade-Based Cohorts.” Journal of Clinical Child and AdolescentPsychology 35:46–59.
Parsons, Talcott, 1954, “Certain Primary Sources and Patterns of Aggression
in the Social Structure of the Western World.” Pp. 298–322 in Talcott
Parsons (ed.), Essays in Sociological Theory, revised edition. New York:Free Press. First published in 1947.
Patterson, Gerald R., Deborah Capaldi, and Lou Bank, 1991, “An Early
Starter Model for Predicting Delinquency.” Pp. 139–168 in Debra J.
Pepler and Kenneth H. Rubins (eds.), The Development and Treatmentof Childhood Aggression. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

96 theories of delinquency
Raine, Adrian, Patricia A. Brennan, David P. Farrington, and Sarnoff A.
Mednick (eds.), 1997, Biosocial Bases of Violence. New York: Plenum.
Rathus, Spencer A. and Larry J. Siegel, 1980, “Crime and Personality Revis-
ited: Effects of MMPI Response Sets in Self-Report Studies.” Criminology
18:245–251.
Redl, Fritz and David Wineman, 1951, Children Who Hate. Glencoe, Ill.:
Free Press.
Richardson, Ken and David Spears (eds.), 1972, Race and Intelligence. Balti-
more: Penguin.
Robins, Lee N., 1966, Deviant Children Grown Up. Baltimore: Williams
and Wilkins.
———, 1993, “Childhood Conduct Problems, Adult Psychopathology, and
Crime.” Pp. 173–193 in Sheilagh Hodgins (ed.), q.v.
Sagarin, Edward, 1980, “Taboo Subjects and Taboo Viewpoints in Criminol-
ogy.” Pp. 7–21 in Edward Sagarin (ed.), Taboos in Criminology. Beverly
Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Salekin, Randall T., Richard Rogers, and Dayli Machin, 2001, “Psychopathy
in Youth: Pursuing Diagnostic Clarity.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence30:173–195.
Sampson, Robert J. and John H. Laub, 1993, Crime in the Making: Pathways
and Turning Points through Life. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UniversityPress.
Schuessler, Karl and Donald R. Cressey, 1950, “Personality Characteristics of
Criminals.” American Journal of Sociology 55:476–484.
Senna, Carl (ed.), 1973, The Fallacy of IQ. New York: Third Press.
Simons, Ronald L., Chyi-In Wu, Rand D. Conger, and Frederick O. Lorenz,
1994, “Two Routes to Delinquency: Differences between Early and Late
Starters in the Impact of Parenting and Deviant Peers.” Criminology32:247–276.
Stattin, Hakan, Anders Romelsjo, and Marlene Stenbacka, 1997, “Personal
Resources as Modifiers of the Risk for Future Criminality.” British Journalof Criminology 37:198–223.
Steinberg, Laurence, 2002 , “The Juvenile Psychopath: Fads, Fictions, and
Facts.” Pp. 35–64 in Alfred Blumstein, Laurence Steinberg, Carl C. Bell,
and Margaret A. Beger (eds.), Perspectives on Crime and Justice: 2000–
2001 Lecture Series, Volume V. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of
Justice.
Sullivan, Clyde, Marguerite Q. Grant, and J. Douglas Grant, 1957, “The De-
velopment of Interpersonal Maturity: Applications to Delinquency.” Psy-chiatry 20:373–385.

psychological theories 97
Sutherland, Edwin H. and Donald R. Cressey, 1978, Criminology, tenth edi-
tion. New York: Lippincott.
Tennenbaum, David J., 1977, “Personality and Criminality: A Summary and
Implications of the Literature.” Journal of Criminal Justice 5:225–235.
Thompson, Laetitia, Paula D. Riggs, Susan K. Mikulich, and Thomas J.
Crowley, 1996, “Contribution of ADHD Symptoms to Substance Prob-
lems and Delinquency in Conduct Disordered Adolescents.” Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology 24:325–347.
Tremblay, Richard E., 1992, “The Prediction of Delinquent Behavior from
Childhood Behavior: Personality Theory Revisited.” Pp. 193–230 in Joan
McCord (ed.), q.v.
Tulchin, Simon H., 1939, Intelligence and Crime. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Vitelli, Romeo, 1997, “Comparison of Early and Late Start Models of Delin-
quency in Adult Offenders.” International Journal of Offender Therapy andComparative Criminology, 41:351–357.
Vold, George B. and Thomas J. Bernard, 1986, Theoretical Criminology, third
edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Waldo, Gordon and Simon Dinitz, 1967, “Personality Attributes of the Crimi-
nal: An Analysis of Research Studies, 1950–65.” Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency 4:185–202.
Ward, David A. and Charles R. Tittle, 1994, “IQ and Delinquency: A Test of
Two Competing Explanations.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology40:189–212.
Warren, Marguerite Q., 1970, “The Case for Differential Treatment of Delin-
quents.” Pp. 419–428 in Harwin L. Voss (ed.), Society, Delinquency, and
Delinquent Behavior. Boston: Little, Brown.
Whimbey, Arthur, with Linda Shaw Whimbey, 1975, Intelligence Can Be
Taught. New York. Dutton.
White, Jennifer L., Terrie E. Moffitt, Felton Earls, Lee Robins, and Phil A.
Silva, 1990, “How Early Can We Tell?: Predictors of Childhood Conduct
Disorder and Adolescent Delinquency.” Criminology 28:507–533.
Wilson, James and Richard J. Herrnstein, 1985, Crime and Human Nature.
New York: Simon and Schuster.
Windle, Michael, 1992, “Temperament and Social Support in Adolescence:
Interrelations with Depressive Symptoms and Delinquent Behaviors.” Jour-nal of Youth and Adolescence 21:1–21.
Yablonsky, Lewis, 1970, The Violent Gang, revised edition. Baltimore: Penguin.
Zeleny, L. D., 1933, “Feeble-Mindedness and Criminal Conduct.” American
Journal of Sociology 38:564–576.

This page intentionally left blank

5
Social Disorganization
and Anomie
99Historical Overview
The suggestion that delinquency is caused by environmental factors
has a long history. Urban studies in the nineteenth century, particu-
larly in Europe, regularly demonstrated correlations between delin-
quency (and crime) and such factors as population density, age and sexcomposition, poverty, and education. Morris ( 1958) maintains that the
three dominant nineteenth-century hypotheses concerning crime cau-sation were poverty, ignorance, and population density. Largely be-cause of the academic and public popularity of individualistic
explanations of delinquency, this earlier interest in environmental re-
search became eclipsed for several years (Voss and Petersen, 1971b).
A distinguishing feature of the earlier, European environmental analy-
ses of criminality, particularly by A. M. Guerry and Adolphe Quetelet,was the extensive use of maps and charts to demonstrate the quantitativedistribution of crime and delinquency. The use of such research meth-
ods has prompted some to name this approach the “Cartographic School”
(Sutherland and Cressey, 1978).
While the results of research conducted within the Cartographic
School supported environmental explanations of criminality, there wasno underlying theory that guided the interpretation of these results.Often the findings were used to indicate the lack of morality in certain
parts of a city or region of a country, or among members of certain

100 theories of delinquency
population categories. The late-nineteenth-century theoretical devel-
opment of the concept of “anomie” by the Frenchman Emile Durkheimand the Marxist theory of class-based behavior patterns, plus the later
work in America of Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay, contributed to
the merger of fact with theory in this area of delinquency research.
Thus, the theoretical constructs that underlie social disorganiza-
tion and anomie as explanations of delinquency extended from priormethodological, but essentially atheoretical, environmental-ecologicalstudies of criminality. At the same time, these explanations represent
the earliest modern sociological and social psychological explanations
of crime and delinquency. The concepts, hypotheses, and researchgenerated from these theories have influenced the analysis of delin-
quency and crime for most of this century.
Generic Assumptions
As explanations of delinquency, social disorganization and anomie share a
common set of assumptions. First, delinquency is assumed to be primarily
caused by social factors. Both explanations consider personal or situational
influences in delinquency, but the dominant factor is social. Second, the
structure and institutions of society are assumed to be in disarray or disor-
ganization. Just specifically what component of society is thought to bein a state of disorganization is one of the factors that distinguishes the two
explanations. Third, the uncertainty and confusion that accompany so-
cial disorganization and anomie are said, in this approach, to leave onevulnerable or susceptible to delinquent behavior. In essence, it is assumed
Figure 3

social disorganization and anomie 101
that social factors control delinquency and, when these factors become
unstable, juveniles are rendered less able to resist deviant temptations.Fourth, it is implied that the erosion of stability in social structure is most
pronounced among the lower classes, an assumption made because these
theories were developed to explain a disproportionate rate of delinquency(and crime) among the working and lower classes. This excess of crimi-
nality among the lower classes of society was partly the result of using
police and court records as the measure of delinquency. Nonetheless,both explanations assume that criminality is inversely related to social class,
although, in the abstract, this assumption is not necessary for either theory.
These assumptions are diagrammed in Figure 3.
It is apparent from the preceding discussion that social disorganization
and anomie are partly social control theories of delinquency. That is, it is assumed
that delinquency results, in part, from a lack of significant attachment to
social institutions, such as the family and school. The thrust of these expla-
nations, however, is on the social factors that produce weakened controls
on delinquency. The specific processes and dimensions of weakened con-trols in relationship to delinquency will be discussed in Chapter 8.
Social Disorganization
Specific Assumptions The foremost assumption of social
disorganization as an explanation of delinquency is that delinquency is
primarily the result of a breakdown of institutional, community-based
controls. The individuals who live in such situations are not necessarilythemselves personally disoriented; instead, they are viewed as responding
“naturally” to disorganized environmental conditions. A second assumption
of this approach to delinquency is that the disorganization of community-based institutions is often caused by rapid industrialization, urbanization,
and immigration processes, which occur primarily in urban areas. Third, it
is assumed that the effectiveness of social institutions and the desirability
of residential and business locations correspond closely to natural, ecological
principles, which are influenced by the concepts of competition and
dominance. Largely because of this assumption, the social disorganizationexplanation of delinquency is associated with the term “ecological
approach.” A fourth assumption is that socially disorganized areas lead to

102 theories of delinquency
the development of criminal values and traditions, which replace
conventional ones, and that this process is self-perpetuating.
The causal chain depicting the assumptions of social disorganiza-
tion in relationship to delinquency is presented in Figure 4.
key concepts
Social Disorganization This term is variously defined throughout the
literature, but in relationship to delinquency, it typically refers to ei-
ther: ( 1) a breakdown in conventional institutional controls, as well as
informal social control forces, within a community or neighborhood
(cf. Thomas and Znaniecki, 1927) or (2) the inability of organizations,
groups, or individuals in a community or neighborhood to solve com-mon problems collectively.Growth Zones As formulated by Burgess ( 1967), this concept refers to
concentric zones that represent distinctive characteristics and that arethought to appear in successive stages as the result of growth and ex-pansion in a city.
Ecological Approach This term refers to the systematic analysis of delin-
quency rates as these are distributed geographically within a city or
locality. The distribution of rates is often mapped, or spotted, and
correlated with other community characteristics, and the results are used
to describe patterns of delinquency in a statistical fashion.Delinquency Area A geographical unit (often approximately a square mile)
that has a higher than average rate of delinquency is referred to as a de-linquency area. It is also presumed that delinquency areas are character-ized by traditions and values that support or even encourage criminality.Figure 4

social disorganization and anomie 103
Discussion: The Work of Shaw and McKay While the mapping
of crime, delinquency, and other “social ills” has been in existence for
over a hundred years, the connection between social disorganization and
delinquency is associated with the work of Clifford Shaw and Henry
McKay, two sociologists connected with the University of Chicago andthe Illinois Institute for Social Research during the early to mid-twentieth
century.
Starting with Delinquency Areas (Shaw et al., 1929), Shaw, and later
McKay, produced a number of books and reports that described thedistribution of delinquency rates in Chicago and that also discussed the
processes which delinquent values and traditions developed and con-tinued. The bulk of this work culminated in a detailed investigation of
delinquency rates in Chicago covering a period of over 30 years, as well
as descriptions of the distribution of rates in 20 other American cities
(Shaw and McKay, 1942). This work has also been revised and updated
to include data through the mid- 1960s (Shaw and McKay, 1969).
The work of Shaw and McKay was decidedly influenced by the
principles of human ecology enunciated by Robert Park and his asso-ciates at the University of Chicago during the early part of the twenti-
eth century (Park, 1936,1967). For example, they utilized the depiction
of urban growth outlined by Burgess ( 1967). This analysis of urban
growth identified five concentric zones characterizing growth in Ameri-can cities in the 1920s, particularly in Chicago. Zone I was called the
central business district or the “Loop” and was located at the center of
the city. Zone II was termed the zone of transition, the oldest section
of the city, and the one being “invaded” by business and industrialexpansion. The residential attractiveness of this zone had declined and
it had become inhabited by recent migrants and the poor. Zone III
was referred to as the zone of working-class homes, usually those inskilled and semi-skilled occupations. Zone IV was the location of single-
family homes and more elegant apartments. Zone V was called the
commuter’s zone, consisting of suburbs and satellite cities surroundingthe central city.
Of course, this depiction of urban growth is not complete. Even
where the pattern does appear to be accurate, the specific dimensionsof the zones can be influenced by numerous conditions, such as his-
torical landmarks and natural barriers. The point is, however, that this

104 theories of delinquency
analysis of urban growth was used by Shaw and McKay not only to
describe the distribution of delinquency, but also to explain why de-linquency was distributed in urban areas as it was. For their purposes,
each zone in Chicago was assumed to be 2 miles in width.
The culminating work of Shaw and McKay presented detailed dis-
cussions of delinquency rates in Chicago over three time periods: 1900–
1906,1917–1923, and 1927–1933. “Delinquency” in these analyses was
first measured by the number of young males, under a specified age,
depending on time period and location, who were petitioned to juve-
nile court, whether or not their case was actually heard by a judge.
Delinquency rate was the percentage of 10- to 16-year-old boys in an
area or zone who had been petitioned to court in the mid-year of the
time series under investigation (Shaw and McKay, 1969). Thus, delin-
quency was measured in terms of official criteria and in terms of where
delinquents livedrather than where the offense was committed.
The results of Shaw and McKay’s investigations revealed that rates
of delinquency decreased as one moved from the zones located at ornear the central business district outward to the commuter’s zone, as
Figure 5 demonstrates. This pattern was replicated for all three time
series under investigation. Although changes in areas or neighborhoods
occurred during the three time periods, 75 percent of the neighbor-
hoods with the highest delinquency rate in 1900–1906 were among
the highest delinquency areas in 1927–1933, with a total correlation of
.61 between the two time periods.
In addition to the distributions charted for court petitions, Shaw
and McKay measured the distribution of rates of males committed tocorrectional institutions and the rate of males who appeared in police
records for the various time periods between 1900 and 1935. The re-
sults were essentially the same as for the earlier analyses of juvenile court
petition rates. That is, the highest rates were found in the center of
the city, near the central business district, and the rates decreased regularly
by zone as one moved farther out from the center of the city. Further-more, the correlations between the three separate measures of delin-
quency and the various time periods ranged from . 81 to .97.
Despite skepticism as to the applicability of the concentric zone
theory to other cities, research conducted in American cities, such asPhiladelphia, Boston, Cleveland, and Richmond, Virginia, also

social disorganization and anomie 105
Figure 5Zone maps for three juvenile court series. Source: Clifford R.
Shaw and Henry D. McKay, Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas.
Revised edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969.
Copyright 1942, 1969, University of Chicago Press.

106 theories of delinquency
concluded that official rates of delinquency decreased from the center
of the city outward to the suburbs (Shaw and McKay, 1969 ). Follow-
up studies in Chicago during the 1950s and 1960s, for both male and
female delinquents, also confirmed the conclusions of the earlier stud-ies in Chicago, although these later analyses did not compare delin-quency rates by concentric zones.
Thus, the ecological research by Shaw, McKay, and others con-
ducted in a number of American cities over a period of 60 years has
consistently demonstrated one basic fact concerning delinquency—
that official rates of delinquency decline with movement away from
the inner city. By itself, this finding, apart from its remarkable consis-
tency, is interesting, but hardly theoretically significant.
1 A number
of related findings reported by Shaw and McKay, however, point tothe theory of social disorganization as a basic explanation of del-inquency.
First, when delinquency rates were observed according to square-
mile areas, the highest rate areas were usually located near or adjacentto industrial or commercial sites, such as the Chicago stock yards and
steel mills. On the other hand, those areas with low rates of delinquency
were primarily residential neighborhoods (Shaw and McKay, 1969).
Second, the persistence of high delinquency rates in Chicago neigh-
borhoods or areas from 1900 to 1933 occurred despite the predomi-
nance of several different ethnic and racial categories of people. At the
turn of the century, the predominant populations in high-delinquency
areas were of northern European background, such as German, Irish,
and English-Scotch. By 1920, the ethnic composition had changed to
eastern and southern European nationalities, such as Polish and Italian.
By the 1930s, the increased presence of African-Americans was begin-
ning to appear (Shaw and McKay, 1969 ). Since certain areas were char-
acterized by high delinquency rates regardless of ethnic or racialpredominance, Shaw and McKay concluded that delinquency was more
a product of economic conditions and locality-based traditions and val-ues than ethnic culture. This view was reinforced by the observation
that delinquency rates among African-Americans and the members of
various nationality groups varied considerably throughout the city andin accordance with the general geographic distribution of overall de-
linquency rates.

social disorganization and anomie 107
Third, delinquency rates by areas were highly correlated with the
rates and severity of other “community problems.” Included in this list
of additional problems were rates of school truancy (which they ap-
parently had separated from delinquency), young adult ( 17 to 20 years
of age) criminality, infant mortality, tuberculosis, and mental disorders
(Shaw and McKay, 1969; see also, Farris and Dunham, 1939).
Fourth, delinquency rates were also correlated with a number of
economic characteristics, thought by Shaw and McKay to be indica-tors of stability or growth, or their opposites. For example, delinquency
rates were generally associated with population decline, although the
relationship was not consistent. In addition, delinquency was positivelyassociated with the percentage of families on relief and rates of finan-
cial dependency. Finally, delinquency rates were inversely related to
median monthly rental values and percentage of home ownership, al-though in the case of the latter the relationship was not consistent.
All of these relationships concerning rates of delinquency did not
prove delinquency causation to Shaw and McKay. What the relation-
ship did was to point to an underlying or overriding condition that led
directly to delinquency. Just what to call this factor, and how best to
describe it, presented Shaw and McKay with some difficulty. Theirearlier analyses, their supporters (see Burgess, 1942), and later their re-
viewers (Voss and Petersen, 1971b; Finestone, 1976), all seem to have
agreed on one term to describe the set of conditions evident in Shawand McKay’s data—namely, social disorganization.
Nonetheless, it should be noted that the later work of Shaw and
McKay did not stress social disorganization. Instead, they referred to
concepts such as differential social organization (a term also used by
Edwin Sutherland; see Chapter 7) and value differences to explain their
position. The term social disorganization has persisted in the literature,
however, and, for the sake of discussion, it will be the frame of refer-
ence for the rest of this section of the chapter.
According to Shaw and McKay the economic instability and social
pathology which characterize delinquency rates lead to conflicting moraland value systems for young children. These conflicting standards are
reflected in the influence that individuals and informal groups exert inthe areas, in addition to, or opposed to, the traditional institutionalized
social control forces emanating from churches, schools, and families. In

108 theories of delinquency
delinquency areas, a young child is as likely to see economic success and
personal reputation earned by criminal behavior as by school successand hard work in legal occupations (Shaw and McKay, 1969).
The extent to which children in a delinquency area may choose to
identify with a conventional or criminal life-style depends on the par-ticular strength of the legitimate social control forces in their lives, par-
ticularly those within their family settings. In addition, the choice of one
life-style over another depends on the amount of support for a particu-
lar pattern of behavior the children receive from their associates and peers.
Since, by definition, delinquency areas are characterized by a concentra-
tion of delinquents and criminals in a small geographical area, the chanceswould be slim of a child growing up in such a setting and not coming
into contact with values and behavior that supported criminality.
The persistence of high delinquency rates in certain areas decade
after decade prompted Shaw and McKay to suggest that a tradition ofcriminality eventually develops in these neighborhoods, which becomes
transmitted from one generation to another. The medium of this trans-mission is largely the structure of juvenile and adult gangs in the areas.
This conclusion was derived from in-depth case studies of juvenile
delinquents (see also, Shaw, 1930 ; Shaw et al., 1938 ). In addition, Shaw
and McKay noted that not only were most delinquent offenses com-
mitted in group settings but that, in most such settings, specific older
and younger boys regularly appeared together in court records “back-ward in time in an unbroken continuity” ( 1969:175).
Evaluation The empirical and theoretical work of Shaw and McKay
has generated a substantial amount of literature in the field of
delinquency (Wilks, 1967; Voss and Petersen, 1971a; Finestone, 1976).
Their work has also generated what some would regard as a successful
delinquency intervention program, the Chicago Area Projects, which
have been operative for over 60 years (Kobrin, 1959; Finestone, 1976;
V. I. P. Examiner, 1992:6–17; Lundman, 1993:Chapter 3). The data and
conceptualization surrounding the work of Shaw and McKay, however,have not been without critical comment. The adequacy of this approach
to an understanding of juvenile delinquency can be evaluated accordingto three factors: ( 1) the influence of cultural factors in the effects of
social disorganization on delinquency; ( 2) the presence of

social disorganization and anomie 109
nondelinquency in “delinquency areas”; and ( 3) the question of
whether socially disorganized areas produce delinquency traditions or
attract delinquent individuals.
One of the strongest criticisms of social disorganization as an ex-
planation of delinquency is that it tends to downplay the significanceof ethnic and cultural factors. The replication of Shaw and McKay’s
work in different countries has generally supported their contention
that delinquent rates are highest in areas marked by economic andpopulation decline or instability (Morris, 1958; DeFleur, 1967). Such
research, however, has not duplicated the American findings of de-creasing rates from the center of the city outward. In Argentina, forexample, the highest rates of delinquency have been found in intersti-
tial and peripheral sections of the city, partly because the wealthy are
often found near the center of the city, while the poorer sections ofthe city are found near its outskirts (DeFleur, 1967).
Obi Ebbe’s research ( 1989) in Lagos, Nigeria, yields additional in-
formation on the cultural aspects of the ecological patterns of delin-quency. Using juvenile court statistics, Ebbe found that the residences
of delinquents tended to be concentrated in “high- and medium-grade
residential districts” (p. 760), which were scattered throughout the
metropolitan area of Lagos. More importantly, however, he noted that
the delinquents in these higher-income areas were typically the ser-
vants of the owners of the homes, servants who lacked transportationand mobility to move or travel to other parts of the city. Furthermore,
Ebbe observed that in “low-grade residential areas” (p. 763) neighbor-
hoods are more homogeneous and socially integrated. Informal social
controls are stronger and rates of delinquency are lower. In effect, he
maintains that these lower-income areas are well organized, a conclu-
sion opposite to that reached by Shaw and McKay.
Also, Johnstone ( 1978), using self-report measures of delinquency,
noted that it was not the lower-class neighborhoods in Chicago whichhad the highest rates of delinquency. Rather, the most delinquent youthwere those who were classified as lower-class but who lived in “middle-
or high-status communities rather than in the heart of a slum area”
(p.65), although not as servants, as in Nigeria. The situation Johnstone
identifies is a form of anomie, a concept which will be discussed in the
next section of this chapter.

110 theories of delinquency
Besides differences in the physical location of delinquency, the
influence of cultural factors can alter the basic effects area of resi-
dence may have on delinquent tendencies. In a strong critique of
Shaw and McKay’s work, Jonassen ( 1949) argues that Shaw and
McKay’s own data reveal marked ethnic differences in delinquency
rates within areas. In addition, Shaw and McKay concede the im-
portance of ethnic differences when they note the unusually lowrates of delinquency among Oriental juveniles found in Hayner’sstudies of Pacific Northwest communities (Hayner, 1942; Shaw and
McKay, 1969). The overall significance of ethnicity as a determin-
ing or mitigating factor in the explanation of delinquency, how-ever, was not developed by Shaw and McKay.
The influence of race and ethnicity on rates of delinquency has
been studied extensively and has indicated a variety of ways in whichsuch cultural factors can influence delinquent behavior. The low rates
of delinquency among Orientals have been noted by others (Smith,
1937; Chambliss, 1974) and have usually been interpreted as reflecting
strong familial controls as well as a strong network of informal groups
and organizations. However, studies have indicated an increase in the
presence of Asian gangs in America (Miller, 1975; Sheu, 1986; Chin,
1990; Delaney, 2005:198–202).
The influence of cultural factors has also been examined relative
to the delinquency-producing effects of cultural conflicts (Sellin, 1938).
Such conflicts are thought to have either direct effects, especially on
second-generation juveniles, or assimilative effects, in which the ex-
tent of delinquency in a minority group becomes similar to that of adominant group as cultural assimilation occurs (Smith, 1937; Young,
1967; Sheu, 1986:Chapter 5; Wong, 1997).
Several contemporary studies have established a clear and significant
decrease in crime and delinquency among immigrants to the United States
and Canada. Thus, despite some of the tenets and conclusions of earlierresearch on social disorganization theory, especially in Chicago in the earlytwentieth century, newer research consistently documents a decline in
criminality among immigrant groups (Hagan et al., 2008; Sampson, 2008;
Stowell et al., 2009). However, generational studies of immigration and
crime indicate that crime and delinquency increase with second-generation immigrant populations, a finding consistent with Sellin’s culture

social disorganization and anomie 111
conflict theory of crime (Hagan et al., 2008). The larger implications of
these findings for social disorganization theory have yet to be clearly
specified. However, the notion that delinquency and crime increase with
immigration, rapidly or otherwise, seems to be increasingly questionable,
in light of continued research on the subject.
Cultural factors are also apparent in the type of delinquency in which
members of various ethnic groups engage. This influence can derive bothfrom the process of assimilation with other cultural groups (Sellin, 1938;
Sutherland and Cressey, 1978) and from the distinctive experiences and
value systems of particular racial and ethnic groups. In a study of theemergence of African-Americans and Hispanics in organized crime, forexample, Ianni ( 1974) argues that the process of transmitting criminal values
from adults to juveniles and from older to younger juveniles does notalways occur in the streets of local neighborhoods but often throughprison experiences. In fact, he argues that, while some similarities exist
between Italian and African-American-Hispanic structures of organized
crime, there are also numerous differences, some of which have a directbearing on the type of criminal activity committed.
More recently, Curry and Spergel ( 1988) contend that social dis-
organization, as measured by the “concentration of Hispanics” (p. 387)
in a locality, is strongly associated with gang-related homicides in Chi-
cago, but not with overall patterns of delinquency. For non-Hispanic
neighborhoods, poverty is strongly associated with delinquency andgang homicides. Overall, they conclude that population shifts in cer-
tain parts of cities, as they may be differentially distributed by race and/
or ethnicity, may explain youth participation in gang violence.
In addition, some cultural contexts might encourage criminal activ-
ity, whether committed by adults or juveniles. In this case, the illegal actswould not be considered criminal, or morally wrong, within the socialor cultural context that such behavior is committed. An example of this
situation may be found among Gypsies, who, according to Anne
Sutherland, value making money from non-Gypsies, regardless of the“legality of a scheme or occupation” ( 1975:73). This cultural value, how-
ever, does not extend to violent acts, especially murder. Thus, while itwould be erroneous to attribute a strong deterministic influence to cul-tural factors, it would be equally wrong to discount or ignore the effect
of such variables on delinquency, as Shaw and McKay tended to do.

112 theories of delinquency
Furthermore, Mayeda et al. ( 2001) argue that gender culture, especially
the combination of gender and ethnicity, should not be ignored in this
discussion.
Another question about the conclusions of Shaw and McKay con-
cerns the extent of nondelinquency in “delinquency areas” (Stark,1987:904–906). Certainly, it is unrealistic to expect a theory to explain
all cases of a phenomenon. Much of sociological theory and research isbased on correlations and relationships, not total explanation and pre-diction. Inasmuch as Shaw and McKay’s own data reveal that no more
than30 percent of the 10- to 16-year-old males appeared in juvenile
court records, even in high delinquency rate areas, their contention that
something about the culture of a geographical area contributes to its rate
of delinquency is subject to challenge. Admittedly, the use of official
court records lowers the percentage of recognized delinquency in a study,as compared to unofficial measures (Robison, 1936). The point remains,
though. that the large percentage of “nondelinquents” in delinquent areasshould be addressed if this theory is to be considered a major explana-tion of delinquency. In part, the difference between geographical, or
ecological, rates of behavior and individual actions of those living in those
localities is a reflection of what Robinson ( 1950) demonstrated. That is,
the collective behavior of the residents may differ, even sharply, from
the activity of any one resident, or a small group of people. This situa-
tion is now clearly understood among sociologists. However, specificinstances of criminality must also be explained, especially if this behavior
runs counter to the patterns of activity existing in a neighborhood or
community.
The development of a cultural tradition of delinquency transmit-
ted through gangs was a primary effort of Shaw and McKay to explainwhydelinquency areas developed and continued. This explanation was
largely based on case analyses, such as The Jack-Roller (Shaw, 1930).
Although these analyses can be very useful in theory building, themethod here often failed to define terms or to quantify concepts inreplicable fashion. These types of shortcomings have prompted some,
such as Kobrin ( 1971), to argue that the delinquency tradition argu-
ment is the weakest link in Shaw and McKay’s theory.
Part of the reason for the unsystematic accounting of the devel-
opment of delinquent traditions was Shaw and McKay’s failure to

social disorganization and anomie 113
develop more specifically some of the institutional and social-psycho-
logical factors which they merely seemed to suggest in their work.Institutional factors, such as family, school, and religious disorganiza-
tion, were often linked with delinquent traditions. By implication, the
presence of greater controls through these institutions over juvenilesresiding in delinquency areas would lessen their chances of commit-
ting delinquency. Similarly, peer relationships and personalities, includ-
ing self-concept, may also explain why many nondelinquents exist indelinquency areas. Later theoretical developments, such as Sutherland’s
theory of differential association, Reckless’ self-concept theory of
delinquency, and a whole battery of theory and research on the ef-fects of institutional attachments and commitments (social control
through social bonds) on delinquency, have contributed considerably
to our understanding and most certainly can be used to distinguishthose who have conflict with the law from those who do not in de-
linquency areas. These theories are discussed in detail in subsequent
chapters.
The consideration of institutional and other specific variables, how-
ever, might not always yield clear distinctions. An ecological study ofdelinquency rates in Philadelphia, for example, compared officially de-fined delinquents with nondelinquents in a “high delinquent area” of
African-Americans according to the following variables: presence of
parents, presence of adult males in home, gender of household head andof main decision maker, household size, ordinal position, occupation and
education of main wage earner, home ownership, and room density
(Rosen, 1978). The basic conclusion of this study was that no variable
distinguished delinquents from nondelinquents in the area studied,
prompting the author to conclude that perhaps the “area” itself should
be the proper focus of attention. Nonetheless, this interpretation wouldnot resolve the question at hand, and presumably factors other than those
measured should be studied.
An analysis of official and self-report delinquency among over 500
male youth aged 11½ to 17½ in New York City attempted to clarify the
effects of various neighborhood and individual conditions (Simcha-Fagan
and Schwartz, 1986). The results indicated that different factors affected
general self-report delinquency versus official (arrest) or serious self-report
youth crime, at the neighborhood level. In the case of the former, rates of

114 theories of delinquency
organizational participation in the neighborhood and level of residential
stability were important correlates. With respect to the other two mea-sures of delinquency, however, only one neighborhood condition ex-
erted any significant effect, and that was the presence of disorder or a
criminal subculture. At the neighborhood level, these results tend to sup-port the social disorganization theory of delinquency, but specify the
theory according to the measure of delinquency utilized.
Individually , that is, for individual assessments of delinquency, age
had the most significant effect on all three measures of delinquency,with older youth being more delinquent, but the relationship was stron-
gest for the two self-report measures. Moreover, the effect of age wasindependent of all neighborhood conditions. This result is difficult to
interpret using social disorganization theory, unless one is willing to
conclude that perhaps the cumulative personal effects of communitydisorganization begin to take their toll at later ages of adolescence.
Further analysis implicated negative school experiences and delinquent
peer associations as being influenced by neighborhood conditions ofstability and conformity, while school experiences and delinquent peers,
in turn, had more direct effects on delinquency, especially self-report
delinquent behavior (Simcha-Fagan and Schwartz, 1986 :689–693).
Thus, some of the neighborhood conditions which may affect in-
dividual patterns of delinquency are being isolated, and this deficiencyof social disorganization theory is being corrected. At the moment,evidence is pointing to the deleterious effects that community-based
characteristics may have on the school and peer relations of young
people. Again, these factors will be analyzed at further points in thisbook.
Sampson and Groves ( 1989) report additional evidence which sup-
ports social disorganization theory, although, by their own admission,their measures of community structure were only approximations of
the concepts suggested by Shaw and McKay. Using survey responses
of nationwide samples of people aged 16 and over in England and Wales,
Sampson and Groves determined crime rates of specific communities
and neighborhoods. An interesting feature of this study is that it mea-
sured crime by the self-reports of the sample, as well as by their indi-cations of the extent to which they had been victimized by criminal
behavior.

social disorganization and anomie 115
Overall, Sampson and Groves found that crime rates were lower
in areas characterized by higher friendship ties in a locality, higher lev-
els of participation in organizations, and greater control of teenage groups.
These factors were considered indications of social organization; thus,
their relative absence suggested social disorganization. Again, however,these concepts are only approximations of community structure. In fact,
in some cases, they were measured by responses to just one statement.
Additional information on this issue is supplied by Gottfredson
et al. ( 1991). Their research is based on self-report estimates of delin-
quency among purposive, predominantly minority samples of youth in
Baltimore, Kalamazoo (Michigan), Christiansted, St. Croix, and theCharleston, South Carolina metropolitan area. Basically, this study finds
that social disorganization contributes little in the way of direct influ-
ence on delinquency, explaining perhaps 1 to 2 percent of the varia-
tion in individual rates of delinquency (p. 221). Rather, the greater
impact of social disorganization is found in the effects of neighbor-hood organization on more proximate contributions to delinquency,in particular social bonds (to parents, the school, and the community)
and peer influences. Furthermore, among males in the sample, living in
more affluent areas is correlated with higher rates of delinquency, par-
ticularly property offenses, a finding similar to that of Ebbe. Unlike
Ebbe’s conclusion, however, Gottfredson et al. suggest that delinquency
is more common in affluent neighborhoods because that is “where themoney is,” so to speak (p. 218). This conclusion is consistent with the
rational choice theory discussed in Chapter 2.
A closely related issue is whether the rates of delinquency for an
area should be based on where the delinquent act occurs or where the
identified delinquent lives. This would not be an issue if the two rates
of delinquency were the same, or if delinquents lived near the locus oftheir deviant acts. The available evidence on this question is not clear.
For example, some argue that very often the area of a delinquent’s home
is the same as the area where he commits offenses (Morris, 1958 ;
Sutherland and Cressey, 1978; Fabrikant, 1979). These statements are
qualified, however, to include mostly serious felonies (such as murder,rape, and robbery), acts in large cities, or inadequate transportation fa-cilities and opportunities. In addition, not all research has found that
delinquent acts are committed in proximity to the residences of

116 theories of delinquency
delinquents (Morris, 1958; DeFleur, 1967). In these cases, it is argued
that delinquency areas are more likely to attract than produce delinquents.
In a similar sense, it could even be argued that areas tend to attract
social misfits and the disadvantaged as a place to reside. As Sutherland
and Cressey ( 1978) contend, however, the observation that delinquent
areas remained such for nearly 30 years, despite numerous turnovers in
dominant ethnic composition, provides strong support for the con-tention that they contain delinquent traditions. Moreover, the casestudy material mentioned earlier frequently reflects pride and determi-
nation in the people who live in these areas rather than fatalism and
apathy. In fact, the whole premise of the Chicago Area Projects is basedon the use of local lay leaders and other residents as the basic source of
neighborhood reorganization.
The impact of neighborhood characteristics on crime and delin-
quency was studied in a project called Moving to Opportunity, orMTO. This project randomly assigned project housing residents in
five cities to areas with less poverty and greater perceived informaland social controls, or collective efficacy (see below). Parents were al-
lowed to volunteer to move. They were provided residential vouch-ers. Most of those involved in the project were minority residents.Several thousand youth were involved in this project, and all were
between 15 and 25 years of age. Their experiences were compared
to a control group of residents who did not move. The results of the
project indicated that arrest rates for violent crimes were significantly
lower for those youth, male and female, who moved, compared to
the controls. In addition, arrest rates for property crimes were lowerfor the experimental group of males and females. However, after a
period of a few years, the arrests for property crimes among males
increased relative to the control group. Males also reported havingmore “problem behaviors.” One reason offered for the increase in
property crime arrests among experimental males was that it took a
while, 3–4 years, for them to take advantage of the new-found op-
portunities to steal from their new neighbors (Kling et al., 2005).
Overall, the results of this study suggest that moving to moreadvantaged areas can significantly reduce violent crime, a finding whichtends to support the basic arguments of social disorganization theory.
On the other hand, that property crime arrests increased among males

social disorganization and anomie 117
moving from more to less disadvantaged neighborhoods suggests that
other factors, perhaps individual or maybe social variables, are also in-fluential in the explanation of crime and delinquency.
Research continues to build upon the connection between neigh-
borhood organizational conditions and patterns of delinquency. Muchof this analysis focuses on the negative impact of neighborhood disor-
ganization on the amount of informal social control and social integra-
tion that exist in a neighborhood, which supports Shaw and McKay’soriginal speculations. Such areas may lose the interest of their residents
in keeping up with the activities and general welfare of their neigh-
bors, including what is happening to the youth in the neighborhood(Elliott et al., 1996). Taylor ( 1997) presents an interesting argument in
support of the impact of socioeconomic conditions at the block level
of residence, and the small-group patterns of behavior control gener-ated at this level of community organization.
Continued research into this issue typically concludes that neigh-
borhood conditions, including poverty in an area, have measurable anddirect effects on crime and delinquency, but that individual-level and
family factors are also important in understanding crime and delinquency
in disorganized neighborhoods (Sampson et al., 2002; Hoffman, 2002).
In some cases, specific neighborhood characteristics may be especially
predictive of delinquency, such as the finding of Hoffman that male
joblessness is predictive of delinquency, irrespective of parental influ-ences, except for the relationship between delinquency and school
involvement, which is stronger when joblessness is low. Furthermore,
the interaction of joblessness, limited parental supervision, and stress(such as school difficulties and family breakup or difficulties) can be
powerful predictors of delinquency.
Some research examines these relationships from the perspective
of the family and suggests that neighborhood characteristics can af-fect the impact of family factors on delinquency. For example, the
chances for “family problems,” such as poor supervision, the use ofphysical punishment, and weak family attachments, to produce higher
risks for delinquency are augmented in poorer communities or neigh-
borhoods (Hay et al., 2006). While poverty is not always synonymous
with social disorganization, the conclusion that neighborhood context
can affect the relationship between a social factor, such as family

118 theories of delinquency
relationships, and delinquency further documents the interactive con-
nections involving neighborhood conditions, other social variables,and delinquency (Kubrin and Weitzer, 2003, especially pp. 389–393;
see also Chapter 12).
Added to this situation is the fact that crime and socially disorga-
nized areas can interact to produce varying patterns of residential mo-
bility. Crime, such as homicide, may generate personal levels of fear,
less neighborhood commitment, and more desire to move away fromthe high crime area(s), although this movement may be easier to ac-
complish among whites than among African-Americans (Morenoff and
Sampson, 1997). This movement, in turn, may result in even less com-
mitment to residential stability and conformity among those left in the
neighborhood.
Of course, these conceptualizations of the negative effects of neigh-
borhood organization can be turned around to generate ideas regardingthepositive impacts of residential wills on reducing crime and delinquency
in a neighborhood (Donnelly and Kimble, 1997 ). Indeed, this outcome is
what the Chicago Area Projects (see above) have intended to accom-plish. However, attempts to build successful neighborhood, or block,
responses to crime and delinquency may depend on physical structuresand social characteristics such as local leadership and residential interest in
reducing criminality (Donnelly and Kimble, 1997; Taylor, 1997:121–131),
characteristics which disorganization seems to affect negatively.
Furthermore, some neighborhoods may develop into what Suttles
calls a “defended neighborhood” ( 1972:21). In such cases, residents may
actually encourage delinquency, especially violent activity, in an effort
to help protect their neighborhood from the perceived advances of un-
desirable racial or ethnic intruders. This possibility has been supported in
ecological studies of delinquency in Chicago (Heitgerd and Bursik, 1987)
and Dayton, Ohio (Baker and Donnelly, 1986). In essence, as Heitgerd
and Bursik ( 1987) observe, the traditional notion that social disorganiza-
tion of a neighborhood contributes to higher rates of delinquency shouldbe amended to address the possibility that stable, “defended” neighbor-
hoods may also have high rates of delinquency in response to perceived
external threats from nearby neighborhoods or communities.
While the separation of offense from residence is important for a
fuller understanding of delinquency, the definition of delinquency based

social disorganization and anomie 119
on residential location is better when the explanation is focused on the
development andtransmission of traditions within geographical areas. If
one were solely interested in charting the distribution of delinquent of-
fenses, then a definition of delinquency based on location of delinquent
acts would be more appropriate. On this issue, then, it would seem thatShaw and McKay’s methods and observations are justified.
In summary, the theory of social disorganization, as principally devel-
oped by Shaw and McKay, has merit in that it has pointed to social causesof delinquency that seem to be located in specific geographical areas. In
this sense, the theory makes a contribution to an understanding of delin-
quency. On the other hand, the lack of specification of just why delin-quent rates are concentrated in certain areas of a city reduces the merits
of the theory. In effect, the theory would appear to be generally accu-
rate, but incomplete (see also, Bursik, 1988). Social disorganization as an
explanation of delinquency thus offers a good starting point, but leaves
to other analyses—whether they are individualistic, cultural, institu-
tional, or social- psychological—the task of more clearly specifying dif-
ferences between delinquents and nondelinquents, whether or not they
live in delinquent areas.
However, it is becoming clear that characteristics of disorganized,
or disadvantaged, areas are not always the same as with the originalconceptualization provided by Shaw and McKay. Now, for example,
disorganized areas may be rendered thus because they attract peopleand/or families who have little choice in their location, such as released
mental patients (Silver, 2000). In addition, Wikstrom and Loeber ( 2000)
indicate that the “tipping point,” so to speak, of when a disorganized
area overcomes the otherwise “protective” effects of individual and
social characteristics among “well-adjusted” youth lies in the presence
of public housing. New research also indicates that the idea of socialdisorganization may be applied to rural areas, for violent juvenile crime.
However, in nonmetropolitan areas, concepts such as population den-
sity and “family disruption” may need to be developed as indicators ofsocial disorganization, as opposed to traditional conceptualizations of
this term (Osgood and Chambers, 2000).
Continued interest in the impact of neighborhood organization
and social characteristics on delinquency is influenced by the use ofthe term “collective efficacy” (Sampson, et al., 1997,1999; Sampson,

120 theories of delinquency
2006). Collective efficacy refers to the willingness and ability of neigh-
borhood residents to become involved in each others’ lives, includ-
ing the lives and activities of children in the neighborhood. As Robert
Sampson explains the concept, collective efficacy combines the ele-
ment of social ties, trust and support among neighbors with the “sharedexpectations” among area residents that social control will occur in
the neighborhood (Sampson, 2006:152). Essentially, research is docu-
menting the antecedent connection between “structural disadvan-
tage,” often measured in terms of socioeconomic status, age, gender,
race, and other demographic characteristics (and thus a form of social
disorganization), and collective efficacy. In turn, collective efficacy isthought to be predictive of criminality, especially violent crime
(Sampson, 2006:156). However, these relationships are complex and
often mutually interactive, as was discussed earlier. Thus, crime may
lead to a lack of collective efficacy and to growing structural disad-
vantages as people with “social capital” (Bursik, 1999), or social and
economic resources, move away from areas characterized by high rates
of crime and declining collective efficacy (Sampson, 2006:158–159).
In addition, some research demonstrates how collective efficacy andeffective parenting interact to suppress delinquency (Simons et al.,2005). Although Sampson identifies collective efficacy with specific
tasks and social problems in an area, the concept as thus defined isslightly different from the concept of social disorganization, as de-fined earlier in this chapter. Still, the terms are very similar. Thus,
continued research into the impact of collective efficacy on lowered
crime rates in geographic areas of a city promises to expand and re-fine our understanding of the connection between social disorgani-
zation and criminality.
Anomie and Delinquency: Discontinuities in Society
Specific Assumptions A sociological construct closely related to,
but conceptually distinct from, social disorganization is anomie. Social
disorganization often applies to localized institutional conditions, while
anomie usually refers to larger, societal conditions. A major assumption
of anomie as an explanation of delinquency and crime is that large

social disorganization and anomie 121
numbers of people who find themselves at a disadvantage relative to
legitimate economic activities are seen as being motivated to engage inillegitimate, delinquent activities. These individuals may be willing to
work or otherwise be productive members of society but, because of
the unavailability of employment or an opportunity to develop job skills,they turn to criminality, perhaps out of frustration with their situation
or perhaps because of economic necessity.
Although anomie theory is oriented toward conditions in society
generally, some researchers have attempted to combine the theory ofanomie with the ecological method, that is, the study of neighborhood
rates of delinquency. These studies are discussed in this section. Withanomie theory, however, there is no basic assumption that delinquency
becomes embodied in localized traditions, which reflect divergent eco-
nomic classes and value systems. According to anomie theory, while suchtraditions may develop, they might more accurately be described as con-
sequences of broader social conditions that affect a society’s economy
and the distribution of work and economic rewards within that society.
The relationship between anomie and delinquency may be presented
as shown in Figure 6. As Figure 6 shows, the relationship between anomie
and delinquency is straightforward. On the surface, it makes no specifi-cations concerning states of mind or intervening conditions. Many of
those who have utilized this explanation of delinquency have attempted
to “flesh it out,” so to speak, but such modifications are not an actualcomponent of anomie theory per se.
key concepts
Anomie This construct refers to inconsistencies between societal con-
ditions and individual opportunities for growth, fulfillment, and pro-ductivity within a society. The term anomia has been used to refer to
those who experience personal frustration and alienation as a result of
anomie within a society.
Figure 6

122 theories of delinquency
Opportunity Structure This concept is defined as the availability of le-
gitimate work and other activity to attain the goals that are inculcated
into the people of a society.
Discussion The introduction of the concept of anomie to sociology
is generally attributed to the French sociologist Emile Durkheim. In a
classic volume entitled The Division of Labor in Society (1933), Durkheim
detailed a thesis which argued that societies normally develop or change
from a relatively simple, uncomplicated state of existence to a complex
state. The first condition Durkheim referred to as a state of mechanical
solidarity , in which societies are held together, so to speak, by forces of
similarities and likenesses. In this state of affairs, the biologicalendowments of people are roughly equal to the roles in life they are
expected to perform (Durkheim, 1933).
As societies become larger and population more dense, and as
economic and technological advances develop, the structure of socialrelationships changes to what Durkheim called organic solidarity. In this
situation, society is held together through a system of functional inter-
dependence. Roles and positions become divided and specialized, and
people come to depend on one another for their survival.
Durkheim viewed this change as natural for a variety of reasons.
For one thing, he equated the development of division of labor withthe insatiable human desire to be happy. Thus, the more work is di-vided and specialized, the more people can produce and consume for
their enjoyment. The natural development of division of labor, how-
ever, does not always occur smoothly. Under certain conditions, thedivision of labor develops “abnormally” and the society is said to be in
a “pathological state.”
Durkheim outlined three situations that could lead to an abnor-
mal division of labor. The first comes from financial crises and failures,as well as industrial conflicts and disputes. The second comes from
unnatural class and caste divisions, in which those in the lower classesrebel against the arbitrary boundaries placed on their aspirations and
abilities. The third abnormal form of a division of labor occurs when
duplication and lack of coordination within and among businesses resultin a breakdown of social cohesion. In a sense, workers become alien-
ated from their jobs.

social disorganization and anomie 123
In part, all three conditions of an abnormal division of labor have
been associated with anomie by subsequent analysts (Taylor et al., 1973).
Durkheim’s own terminology, however, suggests that the term anomie
is to be reserved for times of financial and industrial crises. In a lengthy
discussion of the social causes of suicide, Durkheim specifically referstoanomic suicide as the result of a lack of societal regulation over people’s
desires and aspirations. Furthermore, this societal deregulation arises fromeconomic crises, either depressions or rapid periods of prosperity(Durkheim, 1951).
While Durkheim failed explicitly to relate conditions of anomie
to crime or deviance, with the exception of suicide, later writers didutilize the term to explain the presence of crime and deviance. The
most significant of these contributions was provided by Robert Merton,
whose article on social structure and anomie, first published in 1938,
has become a classic.
The basic argument of Merton’s theory is that there often exists
within a society a discrepancy, or disjunction, between its goals and itssystem of legitimate means for achieving those goals. In the United States,
Merton reasons, the dominant goal is the achievement of economic
success. At the same time, the system of legitimate opportunities forachieving success, such as the availability of educational and occupa-
tional pursuits, is not evenly distributed within the society (Merton,
1957). Although most people can obtain some type of job, the ability
to secure a high-paying position, or one with advancement potential,
is dependent on a variety of conditions that a large part of the popu-
lation does not possess.
The goal of economic success is placed within the realm of cul-
ture, while the system of legitimate opportunities is classified as part ofthe society’s social structure. Anomie is defined, according to this theory,as the disjunction between cultural goals and structured means for
achieving these goals, as it affects a large number of people. For this
reason, Merton’s theory is also known as the means-end theory ofdeviance.
The reactions or adaptations to a state of anomie can vary within a
society, according to Merton, and these reactions help describe the typesof crime and deviance that exist in society. These responses are described
in terms of accepting or rejecting cultural goals or structural means.

124 theories of delinquency
The first reaction is not considered deviant at all, but is termed
conformity . It is characterized by accepting, not necessarily achieving, both
goals and means, and by attempting to abide by one’s lot in life, so to
speak. Merton argues that this reaction is the most common form of
behavior in anomic, yet stable, societies. Thus, the theory would ap-pear to be aimed at a minority of a population that is faced with a con-
dition of anomie. In many ways, this is the same condition with which
Shaw and McKay were faced in their explanation of delinquency asthe result of social disorganization. It must be remembered, however,
that the theories of both Merton and Shaw and McKay were based on
observations of official rates of criminality and deviance. While confor-
mity may appear on the surface to be a dominant reaction among people
in “crime-prone” situations, in actuality it may be a minority reaction.
In any case, the point to be noted here is that conformity to rules andregulations, even when they appear to place one in disadvantageous
and undesirable positions, is a form of behavior that many people adopt.
The other four reactions to anomie, as identified by Merton, are
considered deviant, in one way or another. The first of these is calledinnovation , in which there is an acceptance of cultural goals but a rejec-
tion of legitimate means. The second is termed ritualism , in which the
goals are sometimes rejected while the means are rigidly obeyed. An-other reaction is retreatism , in which both the goals and the means are
rejected. The final response is labeled rebellion , which involves not only
a rejection of goals and means, but also a desire to substitute new goalsand means in place of the established ones.
Of the four “deviant” responses to anomie just described, all but
one point to some evident example of a criminal or delinquent act.The “innovator,” for example, would be expected to engage in theft.
Retreatism would involve illegal drug use. Rebellion would includeproperty destruction and crimes of public disorder. The ritualist, how-
ever, displays no clear-cut example of criminal or delinquent behavior.
It is plausible to connect ritualism with neuroticism and claim a devi-ant connection in that sense. Since Merton’s purpose was to outline a
general theory of deviance, the inclusion of ritualism as a basic “devi-
ant” reaction would thus seem appropriate.
A test of this theory using a national self-report data set (Menard,
1995) concludes that anomie theory is as good an explanation of

social disorganization and anomie 125
delinquency, particularly minor forms of offenses, as are other exp-
lanations, such as social bond theory (see Chapter 8). In addition,
Menard’s analysis indicates that anomie theory is stronger as an expla-
nation of delinquency among younger juveniles, compared to older
youth (p. 166).
The concept of anomie has also been used in connection with
ecological studies of delinquency. One such ecological investiga-tion was Bernard Lander’s ( 1954) analysis of juvenile court statis-
tics among the census tracts of Baltimore. Some results were similar
to the studies of Shaw and McKay. For example, he found large
inverse correlations between the delinquency rates of a census tractand median education, median rental values, and the percentage
of home ownership; positive correlations were found between de-
linquency and overcrowding and substandard housing in censustracts.
In other respects, however, Lander’s study did not support Shaw
and McKay’s findings. Delinquency rates only generally conformed toconcentric zone patterns, and they were not uniformly highest in or
near industrial or commercial zones. In general, Lander’s results ques-
tioned the validity of social disorganization and transitional zones as majorexplanations of the distribution of delinquency rates.
As an alternative explanation, Lander offered the concept of
anomie, which he conceptualized in terms of social and commu-nity stability. Community, or neighborhood, stability is in part ex-
emplified by home ownership, a factor which had the highest overall
correlation with delinquency. Thus, a stable, or less anomic, com-munity would tend to have lower rates of delinquency in spite of
socioeconomic characteristics potentially capable of producingdelinquency, such as substandard housing, poverty, and overcrowd-ing (pp. 55 –58).
The ecological construct of anomie is in some respects so similar
to the social disorganization perspective that a detailed evaluation ofits logical properties would be redundant. There have been several
replications of Lander’s Baltimore study and they have essentially sup-
ported the ecological correlations reported earlier (Bordua, 1958–59;
Chilton, 1964). These analyses, and other discussions of Lander’s study
(Gordon, 1967), however, question the legitimacy of using home

126 theories of delinquency
ownership and percent nonwhite as indicators of anomie. In addi-
tion, statistical manipulations often produce diverse findings and canlead to the conclusion that socioeconomic variables, such as rental
value and median education, are as strongly related to delinquency as
Lander’s anomie constructs.
Overall, it would appear that the ecological definition of anomie,
and its relationship to delinquency, has run its course. This approachto delinquency seems to have no real “home,” as it were, in theo-retical classification schemes. Using anomie as an ecological concept is
inconsistent with a social disorganization perspective. At the sametime, to compare anomie with ecological characteristics is incongru-ous with the dominant usage of the term. Even Merton, for example,
criticizes Lander’s conceptualization on the ground that it represents,
at best, only an indirect measure of social relationships, which rep-resent only one component (actually, result) of anomie (Merton,
1957). The urgings of Chilton ( 1964) and Rosen and Turner ( 1967)
for an end to ecological-anomic studies of delinquency appear to
have been heeded. While the investigation of delinquency still some-
times utilizes ecological measurements, and is more often informed
by anomie theory, the specific search for statistical indices of anomiein neighborhood or census tract settings has become virtually non-
existent.
Evaluation The Durkheim-Merton formulations of anomie have
received a substantial amount of attention in the field of crime and
deviance (Cole and Zuckerman, 1964). Much of this literature has
indicated a general acceptance of anomie as an explanation of criminality.
At the same time, several problems exist that limit the explanatory power
of anomie theory.
One of the foremost concerns is how social conditions become
translated into forces that can influence individual behavior. ForDurkheim, the issue was not an idle one, but one which presentedmany problems to those who would wish to reduce suicide in their
society. For the most part, Durkheim viewed the corporate entity, as
opposed to other institutions such as government, education, the fam-ily, and religion, as the most practical source of efforts to control sui-
cide (Durkheim, 1951). Whether such entities actually are society’s best

social disorganization and anomie 127
defense against suicide, the point to be stressed here is the recognition
by Durkheim that individual adjustments to societal conditions shouldbe considered as part of a full development of socially constructed
theories of behavior.
While Durkheim argued that institutional collectivities are major
connectors between social structure and individual behavior, Merton’sviews on the subject are more general. In the initial explication of his
theory, Merton has conceded that little attention was paid to the in-dividual interpretations of anomic conditions and the effect such in-
terpretations might have on behavior (Merton, 1964). For him,
however, the principal consideration of anomie theory is that it is
based on conditions that characterize society, or the “social surround”
(Merton, 1964). Some maintain that Merton’s version of anomie theory
is actually a dual theory, with motivational (individual) and structural
(social organization) components (Messner, 1988). Messner also ar-
gues that these two dimensions of the theory are independent andthat different research strategies are needed to test each facet of thisexplanation of criminality.
Still, the question remains, what is the relationship between anomie
and individual behavior? A tentative answer for Merton lies in the in-teraction patterns generated by individuals living in “collectivities” of
varying degrees of anomie (Merton, 1964). Thus, the influence of so-
cietal conditions on individual behavior is evident in interaction patterns,
however these may be specifically generated.
2
In a lengthy analysis of reference groups, Merton discusses a
concept that could influence patterns of interaction, although he does
not pursue the connection with respect to his anomic theory of de-
viance. This concept is called relative deprivation, which refers to com-
parisons an individual makes personally, or of the social situation relative
to associates, or others, who are in some respects similar to the per-
son (Merton, 1957). This concept can be used to explain why some
people in “anomic” situations do not resort to criminality to resolve
their dilemma. They do not perceive the dilemma as others might or
as a structural, “objective” assessment of the situation might suggest.
According to the logic of relative deprivation, the poor, or those inthe lower class, do not compare their condition with middle- and
upper-class life-styles, even when they are aware of such values and

128 theories of delinquency
behaviors. Instead, the poor compare themselves with each other or
those just above poverty. In other words, the poor, and other socialclasses as well, will compare themselves more to those with whom
they interact and associate than to those whom they only know
through mass media accounts. It may be argued, for example, thatlabor union workers compare their economic situation more with the
members of other unions than with management. A young lower-
class offender may not be comparing himself with a specific victimwho is also poor and resides nearby, but in relation to the general
conditions of peers and associates, as opposed to those in the middle-
or upper-middle class.
Howard Kaplan and associates (Stiles et al., 2000) argue that rela-
tive deprivation, including national comparisons, can lead to crimeand drug use among juveniles, as a result of poverty or economicdeprivation, but, mostly, because these conditions are translated into
negative self-feelings (see Chapter 8). According to this research, then,
it is often not enough that one actually exist in a state of poverty, nor
even that one is aware of richness amid poverty. All of this has to
translate, at an individual level, into feelings of negativity towards
oneself for crime to occur. Of course, as these authors are aware, eventhis situation might not always produce outward manifestations of dep-
rivation, such as crime, but, rather, inward targeting, such as suicide,
a point also clearly recognized by Durkheim and Merton.
Actually, Durkheim’s concern with institutional factors and
Merton’s use of relative deprivation could be combined to produceanother anomic view of delinquency. If one does not focus on eco-nomic issues, it is possible to conceptualize anomie in terms of specific
organizational goals and means. With respect to delinquency, there-
fore, the means-end theory may be more appropriately applied to schoolproblems, peer relationships, and other youth-oriented concerns, rather
than to economic issues.
Robert Agnew ( 1985) takes another position relative to Merton’s
theory by conceptualizing a connection between delinquency andblocked opportunities to leaveaversive situations. In essence, Agnew ar-
gues that a youth’s inability to escape unpleasant home or school expe-
riences leads to anger and frustration, which then lead to delinquency.
As such, Agnew’s refinement addresses the individual adaptation to

social disorganization and anomie 129
anomie or strain rather than the societal sources of anomie. In an inves-
tigation of this hypothesis, using self-reported measures of delinquencyamong a sample of 10th-grade boys, Agnew reports significant positive
associations between unhappy home and school environments and feel-ings of anger. In addition, anger was significantly, and positively, relatedto delinquency. Furthermore, these relationships persisted even when
other possible explanatory factors were considered, such as grades in
school, aspirations, and attachments to parents. However, the overallcoefficients were modest or low, suggesting that other factors, not in-
cluded in the study, were contributing to delinquency within the sample.
Furthermore, the study was limited to males, and the pain-avoidancemeasures were not very direct.
Agnew modified this position by conceptualizing three kinds of
strain, and naming the idea a “general strain theory,” or GST (Agnew,1992). The first type is the discrepancy between societal means and
goals, which is the traditional view developed by Merton. A secondsource of strain is the loss of something positive in one’s life, such asthe breakup of a relationship with a girlfriend or boyfriend. The third
kind of strain results from the presence of negative events, such as
criminal victimization, or intimidation from parents or peers.
This conceptualization of strain theory was tested on a longitudi-
nal sample of 12- and 15-year-old males and females in New Jersey
(Agnew and White, 1992). The results of this investigation support
Agnew’s position that an expanded conceptualization of strain to in-
clude the loss of positive factors in one’s life, and the presence of nega-
tive stimuli, can contribute to delinquency, as measured by self-reports.In addition, these results were still present when controlling for other
possible contributing factors, such as relationships with deviant peers
and the relative absence of positive associations with conventional as-pects of society (differential association theory and social control or
social bond theory, respectively; see Chapters 7 and 8 in this volume).
Using a national, longitudinal data set, the National Youth Survey,
Paternoster and Mazerolle ( 1994) reach a similar conclusion. Their study
confirms positive associations between general strain and several forms
of self-reported delinquency, controlling for the effects of competingfactors, such as deviant peer associations and weakened social bonds.
In fact, their analysis suggests that general strain leads to weakened bonds

130 theories of delinquency
and to greater delinquent peer associations, which in turn contribute
to delinquency (p. 251; see also, Brezina 1996).
Studies of delinquency using GST continue to provide support
for its basic tenets, as well as to extend its application to more specificconditions and situations (Broidy, 2001). Robert Agnew ( 2001), for
example, offers examples of strain situations which would more likely
lead to criminal responses for youth, such as when a strain is seen as
unjust, or of greater importance (severe injury or financial loss, for ex-ample), or prompts one to see crime as the better, perhaps only, solu-
tion to the strain (males in the inner city being encouraged to respond
to disrespect with violence), or when the strain either results from orcauses low social control, or weak social bonds for the child, such as
poor parenting behavior.
In addition, Agnew et al. ( 2002) conclude that strain produced by
bullying or picking on others is more likely to contribute to self-reported delinquency among youth in middle-late adolescence who
have certain personality traits, such as negativity and low self-constraint(which is similar to low self-control). Other research confirms the con-
ditional impacts on the relationship between strain and delinquency,
conditions such as peer relationships and beliefs and values (Mazerolleand Maahs, 2000), as well as coping abilities, including s piritual coping
characteristics (Piquero and Sealock, 2000), but this topic is still unsettled
and is in need of much additional research. Some suggest that GST canbe augmented by incorporating genetic predispositions, or factors pre-
sumed to be affected by genetics, into the capacities of people to handle
or adjust to the strains they experience (Walsh, 2000).
Agnew ( 2006a, b) has also introduced biological factors, such as
hormonal changes in adolescents, as contributing to delinquency. Inaddition, he has developed GST conceptualizations to explain per-sistent patterns of delinquency, as well as general pathways to delin-
quent behavior, or “life-course persistent” and “adolescence-limited”
patterns of delinquency (see Chapters 4 and 12). For example, Agnew
suggests that many of the life-course persistent delinquents have in-
dividual traits, such as impulsiveness (see the discussions of low self-
control theory in Chapters 8 and 12), or brain abnormalities, which
make them “mean” and less likely to be controlled by adults in their
lives. These individual traits carry over into adulthood and thus

social disorganization and anomie 131
contribute to a life of problems in social relationships and conven-
tional living patterns, including difficulties in obtaining and retaininggood jobs, stable marriages, and so on. These negative events are in-
terpreted as stressors and strains. Adolescents in general experience
more stress and strain because of the changes occurring in their lives,not only biological, but also, and perhaps more importantly, social
changes. Not only do adolescents have less socio-emotional control
than do adults, because of developmental processes, but they also tendto experience negative and controlling forces in their lives through
school and family. In addition, adolescents are more likely to interact
with delinquent peers, even if these peers are not their friends, oftenbecause of associations with peers through school-related activities.
Adolescents experience higher levels of stress and are less able to cope
with these stressors at their age; thus, they are more likely to engagein delinquency. As adolescents age and mature, their level of stress
and strain either decreases or they are better able to adjust and handle
the strain conventionally, leading to the often-noted decline in de-linquency with age (see Chapter 9) (Agnew, 2006a:107–125).
That many of these attempts to extend strain theory often blend
into other theoretical constructs, such as social bond and low self-controltheory, makes it difficult to disentangle the unique contributions of GST
to the understanding of delinquency, compared to these other explana-
tions, a point of which Agnew is fully aware (Agnew, 2001).
However, research on GST demonstrates continued interest in
reconceptualizing Merton’s theory as it applies to the experiences ofyouth, as well as the individual and the institutional components ofsociety which are meaningful at an adolescent stage in life.
3
But general strain theory is not always supported by continuing
research, especially cross-national studies. Some call for more refinedspecification, particularly concerning the situations in which strain may
lead to crime or delinquency (Botchkovar et al., 2009).
Summary
As social explanations of delinquency, social disorganization and anomie
offer significant contrasts to individualistic explanations. In both

132 theories of delinquency
instances, the logic of the theory appears to be fairly sound, if not com-
plete. Furthermore, in the case of social disorganization, there has ap-peared a rather impressive collection of supporting evidence (the
empirical assessment of the anomic theory of delinquency is discussed
in Chapter 6).
A persistent problem of both explanations of delinquency, how-
ever, is the lack of explanation as to how social or societal conditionsexert an influence over one’s behavior. In this sense, both theoriesare incomplete. While they provide a solid base from which to launch
other theoretical explanations of delinquency, they should not be in-
terpreted as providing the ultimate sociological understanding ofdelinquency.
In particular, the theory of social disorganization has provided the
basis for many significant contributions to delinquency theory and re-search in the latter half of the twentieth century. The explanatory value
of social disorganization lies in its implication of institutional factors in
the etiology of delinquency. Although these factors were largely invokedin an attempt to explain the ultimate acceptance of delinquent behavior
in delinquency areas, subsequent research has pointed to institutional
factors as significant influences in their own right. In addition, the cul-tural transmission aspect of social disorganization utilizes interpersonal
concepts in describing the process of learning and conveying criminal
values. These concepts have also proved useful in explaining delinquency.
The theory of anomie, particularly Merton’s means-end interpre-
tation, is also not without promise as an explanation of delinquency.Anomie theory might best be applied to delinquency in the form ofmeans and goals that are relevant to the status of youth, such as pres-
sures and expectations associated with school or home, rather than solely
in terms of economic issues.
Within the context of general strain theory, delinquency, or youth
deviance in general, is viewed as an escape mechanism from the negativeaspects in one’s life, or as a kind of compensation for the loss of a lovedone, or a prized goal. As such, this conceptualization of anomie stresses the
individual adaptations to personal strain, rather than to the societal factors
which produce the stress in the first place.
4 Nonetheless, a large part of
the literature relating anomie to delinquency has focused on the distribu-
tion of economic opportunities in society, particularly among lower-class

social disorganization and anomie 133
youth. The applications of anomie theory, and other theories, to delinquent
behavior among lower-class youth is presented in the following chapter.
Notes
1. Bursik ( 1984,1986,1988) points out that changes in economic, racial/
ethnic, and other socioeconomic conditions within urban areas may alter the
geographic distribution of delinquency rates. Furthermore, such changes maynot always result from “natural” competition for limited space, but might alsoreflect the intentional efforts of those who have some control over land-use pat-terns. Walker ( 1994) reaches a similar conclusion in a study of delinquency in
Little Rock, Arkansas. The analysis supported many of Shaw and McKay’s ear-lier findings. However, the distribution of delinquency rates within the metro-politan area of Little Rock did not correspond to a concentric pattern. Walkersuggests this finding is the result of newer patterns of dispersed social life-stylesand economic opportunities in modern urban areas (pp. 68–69).
2. Lemert ( 1964) argues that individual choices are also controlled by calcu-
lated risk assessments and awareness of the opportunity to commit illegal ordeviant acts. In this analysis, cultural or societal conditions are relativelynoninfluential in the explanation of individual behavior, especially in a com-
plex, technologically advanced society, such as the United States.
3. An interesting collection of essays on anomie theory has been published
(Adler and Laufer, 1995). Among other papers, this book contains a fascinating
account by Merton of the development of opportunity structure (anomie) theory,
from the 1930s through the 1950s. In addition, there are papers that address the
social-psychological and peer aspects of anomie or strain theory, including Agnew’srevised strain theoretical perspective (Agnew, 1995; Hoffman and Ireland, 1995).
4. Agnew ( 1999) recognizes this bias and has attempted to increase the scope
of GST by including macro, or societal, examples of strain and their impact ondelinquency, and this approach to GST has received some research support(Brezina et al., 2001).
References
Adler, Freda and William S. Laufer (eds.), 1995, The Legacy of Anomie Theory.
New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction.
Agnew, Robert, 1985, “A Revised Strain Theory of Delinquency.” Social Forces
64:151–167.
———, 1992, “Foundation for a General Strain Theory of Crime and Delin-
quency.” Criminology 30:47–87.

134 theories of delinquency
———, 1995, “The Contribution of Social-Psychological Strain Theory to
the Explanation of Crime and Delinquency.” Pp. 113–137 in Freda Adler
and William S. Laufer (eds.), q.v.
———, 1999 “A General Stain Theory of Community Differences in Crime
Rates.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 36:123–155.
———, 2001, “Building on the Foundation of General Strain Theory: Speci-
fying the Types of Strain Most Likely to Lead to Crime and Delinquency.”
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38:319–361
———, 2006a, Pressured Into Crime: An Overview of General Strain Theory.
Los Angeles: Roxbury.
———, 2006b, “General Strain Theory: Current Status and Directions for
Further Research.” Pp. 101–123 in Francis T. Cullen, John Paul Wright,
and Kristie R. Blevins (eds.), Taking Stock: The Status of CriminologicalTheory, Advances in Criminological Theory, Vol. 15. New Brunswick,
N.J.: Transaction.
Agnew, Robert and Helen Raskin White, 1992, “An Empirical Test of General
Strain Theory.” Criminology 30:475–499.
Agnew, Robert, Timothy Brezina, John Paul Wright, and Francis T. Cullen,
2002, “Strain, Personality Traits, and Delinquency: Extending General Strain
Theory.” Criminology 40:43–71.
Baker, Daniel and Patrick G. Donnelly, 1986, “Neighborhood Criminals
and Outsiders in Two Communities: Indications that Criminal LocalismVaries.” Sociology and Social Research 71:59–65.
Bordua, David J., 1958–59, “Juvenile Delinquency and ‘Anomie’: An Attempt
at Replication.” Social Problems 6:230–238.
Botchkovar, Ekaterina V., Charles R. Tittle, and Olena Antonaccio, 2009,
“General Strain theory: Additional Evidence Using Cross-Cultural Data.”Criminology 47:131–173.
Brezina, Timothy, 1996, “Adapting to Strain: An Examination of Delinquent
Coping Responses.” Criminology 34:39–60.
Brezina, Timothy, Alex R. Piquero, and Paul Mazerolle, 2001, “Student Anger
and Aggressive Behavior in School: An Initial T est of Agnew’s Macro-Level
Strain Theory.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38:
362–386.
Broidy, Lisa M., 2001, “A Test of General Strain Theory.” Criminology 39:9–33.
Burgess, Ernest W., 1942, “Introduction.” Pp. ix–xiii in Clifford R. Shaw and
Henry D. McKay, q.v.
———, 1967, “The Growth of the City: An Introduction to a Research
Project.” Pp. 47–62 in Robert E. Park, Ernest W. Burgess, and Roderick
D. McKenzie (eds.), q.v.

social disorganization and anomie 135
Bursik, Robert J., Jr., 1984, “Urban Dynamics and Ecological Studies of
Delinquency.” Social Forces 63:393–413.
———, 1986, “Ecological Stability and the Dynamicsof Delinquency.”
Pp.35–66 in Albert J. Reiss, Jr. and Michael Tonry (eds.), Communities
and Crime, Vol. 8. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
———, 1988, “Social Disorganization and Theories of Crime and Delinquency:
Problems and Prospects.” Criminology 26:519–551.
Bursik, Robert J., 1999, “The Informal Control of Crime through Social
Networks.” Sociological Focus 32:85–97.
Chambliss, William J., 1974, “Functional and Conflict Theories of Crime.”
MSS Modular Publications, Module 17:1–23.
Chilton, Roland J., 1964, “Continuity in Delinquency Area Research: A
Comparison of Studies of Baltimore, Detroit, and Indianapolis.” American
Sociological Review 29:71–83.
Chin, Ko-Lin, 1990, Chinese Subculture and Criminality: Non-Traditional
Crime Groups in America. New York: Greenwood.
Clinard, Marshall B., (ed.), 1964, Anomie and Deviant Behavior. New York:
Free Press.
Cole, Stephen and Harriet Zuckerman, 1964, “Inventory of Empirical and
Theoretical Studies of Anomie.” Pp. 243–283 in Marshall B. Clinard (ed.),
q.v.
Curry, G. David and Irving A. Spergel, 1988, “Gang Homicide, Delinquency,
and Community.” Criminology 26:381–405.
DeFleur, Lois B., 1967, “Ecological Variables in the Cross-Cultural Study of
Delinquency.” Social Forces 45:556–570.
Delaney, Tim, 2005. American Street Gangs. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Donnelly, Patrick G. and Charles E. Kimble, 1997, “Community Organizing,
Environmental Change, and Neighborhood Crime.” Crime and Delin-quency 43:493–511.
Durkheim, Emile, 1933, The Division of Labor in Society, translated by George
Simpson. London: The Free Press of Glencoe. First published in 1893.
———, 1951, Suicide, translated by John A. Spaulding and George Simpson.
New York: Free Press. First published in 1897.
Ebbe, Obi N. I., 1989, “Crime and Delinquency in Metropolitan Lagos: A
Study of ‘Crime and Delinquency’ Theory.” Social Forces 67:751–765.
Elliott, Delbert S., William Julius Wilson, David Huizinga, Robert J.
Sampson, Amanda Elliott, and Bruce Rankin, 1996, “The Effects of
Neighborhood Disadvantage on Adolescent Development.” Journal ofResearch in Crime and Delinquency 33:389–426.

136 theories of delinquency
Fabrikant, Richard, 1979, “The Distribution of Criminal Offenses in an
Urban Environment: A Spatial Analysis of Criminal Spillovers and of
Juvenile Offenders.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology33:32–48.
Farris, R. E. L. and H. W. Dunham, 1939, Mental Disorders in Urban Areas.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Finestone, Harold, 1976, Victims of Change. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood.
Gordon, Robert A., 1967, “Issues in the Ecological Study of Delinquency.”
American Sociological Review 32:927–944.
Gottfredson, Denise C., Richard J. McNeil, III, and Gary D. Gottfredson,
1991, “Social Area Influences on Delinquency: A Multilevel Analysis.”
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 28:197–226.
Hagan, John, Ron Levi, and Ronit Dinovitzer, 2008, “The Symbolic Vio-
lence of the Crime-Immigration Nexus: Migrant Mythologies in theAmericas.” Criminology and Public Policy 7:95–111.
Hay, Carter, Edward N. Fortson, Dusten R. Hollist, Irshad Altheimer, and
Lonnie M. Schaible, 2006, “The Impact of Community Disadvantage in
the Relationship between the Family and Juvenile Crime.” Journal ofResearch in Crime and Delinquency 43:326–356.
Hayner, Norman S., 1942, “Five Cities of the Pacific Northwest.” Pp. 353–387
in Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay, q.v.
Heitgerd, Janet L. and Robert J. Bursik, Jr., 1987, “Extra-Community Dy-
namics and the Ecology of Delinquency.” American Journal of Sociology92:775–787.
Hoffman, John P., 2002, “A Contextual Analysis of Differential Association,
Social Control, and General Strain Theories of Delinquency: Social Forces81:753–785.
Hoffman, John P. and Timothy Ireland, 1995, “Cloward and Ohlin’s Strain
Theory Reexamined: An Elaborated Theoretical Model.” Pp. 247–270 in
Freda Adler and William S. Laufer (eds.), q.v.
Ianni, Francis A. J., 1974, Black Mafia. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Johnstone, John W. C., 1978, “Social Class, Social Areas and Delinquency.”
Sociology and Social Research 63:49–72.
Jonassen, Christen T., 1949, “A Re-Evaluation and Critique of the Logic
and Some Methods of Shaw and McKay.” American Sociological Re-view 14:608–617.
Kling, Jeffrey R., Jens Ludwig, and Lawrence F. Katz, 2005, “Neighborhood
Effects on Crime for Female and Male Youth: Evidence from a Random-ized Housing Voucher Experiment.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics120:87–130.

social disorganization and anomie 137
Kobrin, Solomon, 1959, “The Chicago Area Project—A 25-Year Assess-
ment.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sci-
ence 322:20–29.
———, 1971, “The Formal Logical Properties of the Shaw-McKay Delin-
quency Theory.” Pp. 101–131 in Harwin L. Voss and David M. Peterson
(eds.), q.v.
Kubrin, Charis E. and Ronald Weitzer, 2003, “New Directions in Social Dis-
organization Theory.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency40:374–402.
Lander, Bernard, 1954, Towards an Understanding of Juvenile Delinquency.
New York: Columbia University Press. Reprinted by AMS Press, 1970.
Lemert, Edwin M., 1964, “Social Structure, Social Control, and Deviation.”
Pp.57–97 in Marshall B. Clinard (ed.), q.v.
Lundman, Richard J., 1993, Prevention and Control of Delinquency, second
edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mayeda David Tokiharu, Meda Chesney-Lind, and Jennifer Koo, 2001, “Talk-
ing Story with Hawaii’s Youth: Confronting Violent and Sexualized Per-ceptions of Ethnicity and Gender.” Youth & Society 33:99–128.
Mazerolle, Paul and Jeff Maahs, 2000, “General Strain Theory and Delinquency:
An Alternative Examination of Conditioning Influences.” Justice Quar-terly 17:753–777.
Menard, Scott, 1995, “A Developmental Test of Mertonian Theory.” Journal
of Research in Crime and Delinquency 32:136–174.
Merton, Robert K., 1957, Social Theory and Social Structure, revised and
enlarged edition. London: The Free Press of Glencoe.
———, 1964, “Anomie, Anomia, and Social Interaction: Contexts of Devi-
ant Behavior.” Pp. 213–242 in Marshall B. Clinard (ed.), q.v.
Messner, Steven F., 1988 , “Merton’s ‘Social Structure and Anomie’: The Road
Not Taken.” Deviant Behavior 9:33–53.
Miller, Walter B., 1975, Violence by Youth Gangs and Youth Groups as a Crime
Problem in Major American Cities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.
Morenoff, Jeffrey D. and Robert J. Sampson, 1997, “Violent Crime and the
Spatial Dynamics of Neighborhood Transition: Chicago, 1970–1990.”
Social Forces 76:31–64.
Morris, Terence, 1958, The Criminal Area. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
Osgood, D Wayne and Jeff M. Chambers, 2000, “Social Disorganization
Outside the Metropolis: An Analysis of Rural Youth Violence.” Criminol-ogy38:81–116.

138 theories of delinquency
Park, Robert E., 1936, “Human Ecology.” American Journal of Sociology
42:1–15.
———, 1967, “The City: Suggestions for the Investigation of Human Behavior
in the Urban Environment.” Pp. 1–46 in Robert E. Park, Ernest W. Burgess,
and Roderick D. McKenzie (eds.), q.v.
Park, Robert E. Ernest W. Burgess, and Roderick D. McKenzie (eds.), 1967,
The City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Paternoster, Raymond and Paul Mazerolle, 1994, “General Strain Theory and
Delinquency: A Replication and Extension.” Journal of Research on Crime
and Delinquency 31:235–263.
Piquero, Nicole Leeper and Miriam D. Sealock, 2000, “Generalizing Strain
Theory: An Examination of an Offending Population.” Justice Quarterly17:449–484.
Robinson, W. S., 1950, “Ecological Correlations and the Behavior of Indi-
viduals.” American Sociological Review 15 :351–357.
Robison, Sophia M., 1936, Can Delinquency Be Measured? New York:
Columbia University Press.
Rosen, Lawrence, 1978 , The Delinquent and Non-Delinquent in a High
Delinquent Area. San Francisco: R&E Research Associates.
Rosen, Lawrence and Stanley H. Turner, 1967, “An Evaluation of the
Lander Approach to Ecology of Delinquency.” Social Problems15:189–200.
Sampson, Robert J., 2006, “Collective Efficacy Theory: Lessons Learned
and Directions for Future Inquiry.” Pp. 149–167 in Francis T. Cullen,
John Paul Wright, and Kristie R. Blevins (eds.), Taking Stock: TheStatus of Criminological Theory, q.v.
———, 2008, “Rethinking Immigration and Crime.” Contexts: Understand-
ing People in Their Social Worlds 7:28–33.
Sampson, Robert J. and W. Byron Groves, 1989, “Community Structure and
Crime: Testing Social Disorganization Theory.” American Journal ofSociology 94:774–802.
Sampson, Robert J., Jeffery D. Morenoff, and Felton Earls, 1999, “Beyond
Social Capital: Spatial Dynamics of Collective Efficacy.” American Socio-logical Review 64:633–660.
Sampson, Robert J., Jeffrey D. Morenoff, and Thomas Gannon Rowley, 2002,
“Assessing ‘Neighborhood Effects’: Social Processes and New Directionsin Research.” Annual Review of Sociology 28:443–478.
Sampson, Robert J., Stephen W. Raudenbusch, and Fenton Earl, 1997, “Neigh-
borhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy.”Science 277:918–924.

social disorganization and anomie 139
Sellin, Thorsten, 1938, Culture Conflict and Crime. New York: Social Science
Research Council.
Shaw, Clifford R., 1930, The Jack-Roller. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Shaw, Clifford R. and Henry D. McKay, 1942, Juvenile Delinquency and Urban
Areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
———, 1969, Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas, revised edition. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Shaw, Clifford R., Henry D. McKay, and James F. McDonald, 1938, Brothers
in Crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Shaw, Clifford R., Frederick M. Zorbaugh, Henry D. McKay, and Leonard S.
Cottrell, 1929, Delinquency Areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sheu, Chuen-Jim, 1986, Delinquency and Identity: Juvenile Delinquency in
an American Chinatown. New York: Harrow and Heston.
Silver, Eric, 2000, “Extending Social Disorganization Theory: A Multilevel
Approach to the Study of Violence among Persons with Mental Illness.”
Criminology 38:1043–1074.
Simcha-Fagan, Ora and Joseph E. Schwartz, 1986, “Neighborhood and
Delinquency: An Assessment of Contextual Effects.” Criminology24:667–703.
Simons, Ronald L., Leslie Gordon Simons, Callie Harbin Burt, Gene H. Brody,
and Carolyn Cutrona, 2005, “Collective Efficacy, Authoritative Parenting,
and Delinquency: A Longitudinal Test of a Model Integrating Commu-nity- and Family-Level Processes.” Criminology 43:989–1029.
Smith, William Carlson, 1937, Americans in Process. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Edwards
Brothers.
Stark, Rodney, 1987, “Deviant Places: A Theory of the Etiology of Crime.”
Criminology 25:893–909.
Stiles, Beverly L., Xiaoru Liu, and Howard D. Kaplan, 2000, “Relative Dep-
rivation and Deviant Adaptations: The Mediating Effects of Negative Self-Feelings.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 37:64–90.
Stowell, Jacob I., Steven F. Messner, Kelly F. McGeever, and Lawrence E.
Raffalovich, 2009, “Immigration and the Recent Violent Crime Drop in
the United States: A Pooled, Cross-Sectional Time-Series Analysis ofMetropolitan Areas.” Criminology 47:889–928.
Sutherland, Anne, 1975, Gypsies: The Hidden Americans. London: Tavistock.
Sutherland, Edwin H. and Donald R. Cressey, 1978, Criminology, tenth edi-
tion. New York: Lippincott.
Suttles, Gerald D., 1972, The Social Construction of Communities. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

140 theories of delinquency
Taylor, Ian, Paul Walton, and Jock Young, 1973, The New Criminology.
New York: Harper & Row.
Taylor, Ralph B., 1997, “Social Order and Disorder of Street Blocks and Neigh-
borhoods: Ecology, Microecology, and the Systemic Model of Social Dis-
organization.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 34:113–155.
Thomas, William I. and Florian Znaniecki, 1927, The Polish Peasant in Europe
and America, Vol. 2. New York: Knopf.
V.I.P. Examiner, 1992, “Chicago Area Project: A Delinquency Prevention
Project.” Summer: 6–17.
Voss, Harwin L. and David M. Petersen (eds.), 1971a, Ecology, Crime, and
Delinquency. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
——— (eds.), 1971b, “Introduction.” Pp. 1–44 in Voss and Petersen (eds.), q.v.
Walker, Jeffery T., 1994, “Human Ecology and Social Disorganization Re-
visit Delinquency in Little Rock.” Pp. 46–78 in Gregg Barak (ed.), Vari-
eties of Criminology: Readings from a Dynamic Discipline. Westport,Conn.: Praeger.
Walsh, Anthony, 2000, “Behavior Genetics and Anomie/Strain Theory.”
Criminology 38:1075–1107.
Wikstrom, Per-Olof H. and Rolf Loeber, 2000, “Do Disadvantaged Neigh-
borhoods Cause Well-Adjusted Children to Become Adolescent De-linquents? A Study of Male Juvenile Serious Offending, Individual Riskand Protective Factors, and Neighborhood Context.” Criminology38:1109–1142.
Wilks, Judith A., 1967, “Ecological Correlates of Crime and Delinquency.”
Pp.138–156 in The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and
Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: Crime and Its Impact—AnAssessment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Wong, Siu Kwong, 1997, “Delinquency of Chinese-Canadian Youth: A Test
of Opportunity, Control, and Intergeneration Conflict Theories.” Youthand Society 29:112–133.
Young, Pauline V., 1967, The Pilgrims of Russian-Town. New York: Russell
and Russell. First published in 1932.

6
Lower-Class-Based Theories
of Delinquency
141Historical Overview and Generic Assumptions
Beginning in the 1950s, several causal theories of juvenile delinquency
were developed in an attempt to explain delinquent, and typically
delinquent gang, behavior of lower-class males. Such explanations con-
centrated on the social nature of delinquency, much like the socialdisorganization and anomie theories offered 20 or 30 years earlier. In-
deed, they may be viewed as modifications and extensions of socio-logical perspectives that developed in the 1920s. In this context, a
“juvenile gang” is often described as a “delinquent subculture,” or at
least as being the gang part of such a subculture. For this reason, these
are referred to as “subcultural theories” of delinquency. This termi-nology suggests one major assumption—namely, that most delinquent
behavior occurs within a group or gang setting. Delinquents, it is said,
typically act together, or when they act alone, their behavior is stronglyinfluenced by groups, gangs, peers, and the general ambience of their
lives and associations.
While the majority of the discussion to follow in this chapter per-
tains to delinquency within group, or gang, contexts, this discussion isnot intended to provide an extensive analysis of gangs. For more de-
tailed information on gang structures and gang developments, includ-ing the impact of gang membership on delinquency, see, for example,
Klein, 1995; Yablonsky, 1997; and Battin et al., 1998).

142 theories of delinquency
Another basic assumption of these theories is that delinquency is
overwhelmingly a lower-class , male phenomenon. As Albert Cohen, the
developer of one such theory, put it: “It is our conclusion, by no means
novel or startling, that juvenile delinquency and the delinquent sub-
culture in particular are overwhelmingly concentrated in the male,working-class sector of the juvenile population” ( 1955:371). Here, as
elsewhere, Cohen uses the term “working class” more or less inter-changeably with “lower class,” although many sociologists make a ratherstrong distinction. Whatever the terminology, alltheories of lower-class
juvenile misconduct are based on the assumption that delinquency, par-ticularly gang delinquency, is concentrated in the lower class, as mea-sured by a variety of economic and social factors.
Of course, some investigators are skeptical of the validity of this as-
sumption (Vaz, 1967). Surely, they argue, delinquency occurs among all
social classes, and the official estimates of delinquency, which so regularly
indict the lower classes, are more reflections of the biases of the police,
courts, and others than the actual behavior of lower-class juveniles. Theoristswho contend that the delinquency of lower-class youth is relatively high
are not unmindful of such charges. Upon examination of the evidence,
their conclusion remains, however, unchanged: serious and repetitivejuvenile delinquency is predominantly a lower-class phenomenon.
Similar arguments and charges are sometimes raised with respect to
the distribution of delinquency by gender, although the evidence hereis not as much in doubt as with the question of social class. Much of the
controversy regarding the increased involvement of females in crime and
delinquency is built around the suspected influence of the changinggender roles of women on the opportunity and motivation for deviance
(delinquency in this case) among the distaff side of the population (Adler,
1975; Simon, 1975; Steffensmeier and Steffensmeier, 1980). Data on the
increase of female delinquency indicate that female rates of delinquency
are still lower than male rates. Furthermore, the increase in female delin-
quency has been primarily in property- and drug-related crimes. Femaleshave not been involved in violent offenses to the same extent as males,
and female delinquency has not been considered as threatening as male
delinquency (Chesney-Lind and Shelden, 1998:7–72).
Certainly, there is enough delinquency among the lower-class male seg-
ment of the population, whether it has been officially recorded or not, to

lower-class-based theories of delinquency 143
warrant concern and investigation. To the extent that delinquency occurs
among lower-class youth, it may well be that experiences of the lower class,including values and life-styles, contribute significantly to this behavior.
A sound explanation of delinquency within a particular segment of
the population, therefore, may be useful in the search for delinquencycausation. Such an explanation would not only be useful in its own right,
but it might also provide insightful clues for the explanation of delin-
quency among other groups of people.
There are three major concepts and ideas in the subcultural expla-
nations of lower-class delinquency: the middle-class measuring rodtheory of Cohen, the opportunity theory of Richard Cloward and LloydOhlin (partly based on Merton’s anomie theory of deviance), and the
lower-class value system explanation of Walter Miller.
Cohen and the Middle-Class Measuring Rod
Specific Assumptions The middle-class measuring rod theory has four
basic assumptions: ( 1) that a relatively high number of lower-class youth
(males in particular) do poorly in school; ( 2) that poor school performance
is related to delinquency; ( 3) that poor school performance is mostly
attributable to a conflict between the dominant middle-class values of the
school system and the values of lower-class youth; and ( 4) that lower-class
male delinquency is largely committed in a gang context, partly as a means
of developing more positive self-concepts and nurturing antisocial values.
key concepts
Reaction Formation This is a Freudian term that describes the process
in which a person openly rejects that which he wants, or aspires to,
but cannot obtain or achieve.
Middle-Class Measuring Rod The evaluations of school performance or
behavior according to norms and values thought to be associated with
the middle class, such as punctuality, neatness, cleanliness, nonviolent
behavior, and so on, constitute a middle-class measuring rod.
Discussion The gist of Cohen’s ( 1955) argument is that social class
membership is associated with social values and life-styles. With respect

144 theories of delinquency
to child-rearing in the middle class, the working-class (and presumably
lower-class) child is likely to be taught that behavior should bespontaneous and aggressive. Values are focused on the present with
little emphasis placed on long-range planning. Socialization, or training,
in the lower class is “easy going.” The child learns to obey commandsbecause of the immediate, practical value of obedience, not because
of the intrinsic worth or “good” associated with conformity in and of
itself, or because obedience will generate warm, affectionate reactionsfrom a parent who is loving and on whom the child has become
dependent.
By contrast, Cohen maintains that middle-class socialization or child-
rearing stresses values and life-styles that are often quite opposite tothose found within the lower class. Specifically, he suggests that middle-
class values can be summed up in nine concepts: ( 1) drive and ambi-
tion, ( 2) individual responsibility, ( 3) achievement and success, whether
at work, in the classroom, on the field, or in any other arena of com-petition, ( 4) the willingness to postpone immediate satisfaction of wants
and desires for future profit or gain (the deferred gratification pattern),
(5) rationality in the form of long-range planning and budgeting,
(6) exercise of courtesy and self-control in association with others, par-
ticularly strangers, ( 7) control of violence and aggression, verbal or physi-
cal, in all social settings, ( 8) “wholesome” recreation, that is, constructive
use of leisure time, such as in a hobby, and ( 9) respect for the property
of others, perhaps the most basic value of all. Here, Cohen is suggestingthat the middle-class members of society admire and try to promote
more than simple, basic honesty. The value of property rights extendsto the right of the owner of an article or thing to do as he or she wishes
with it, with little interference from others.
While these two separate class-related value systems exist, middle-
class values predominate within the school context. Consequently, thelower-class youth finds himself “measured” and evaluated by middle-
class standards. This situation would present no problems to thelower-class young were it not for two conditions. First, middle-class
values are the generally accepted ones in society, even among those of
the lower class. Thus, standards of acceptance, achievement, and re-ward, as established by middle-class values and norms, are adopted and
aspired to by members of the lower class. Second, personal failure alone,

lower-class-based theories of delinquency 145
at the immediate level of the school setting, can lead to other prob-
lems, not excluding delinquency.
So strongly does the lower-class boy initially aspire to the middle-
class standards of success that his repeated failures in the school system,both academically and otherwise, lead him to reject the school and thesystem of values it represents (a reaction formation). In this case, Cohen
argues, the lower-class boy repudiates middle-class values and becomes
malicious and hostile toward a now hated set of standards and all thingswhich symbolize those standards. Cohen stresses three descriptive words
to denote the extent to which the lower-class delinquent boy rejects
middle-class status symbols: malicious , negativistic , andnonutilitarian. In other
words, delinquent boys are “just plain mean.” Middle-class standards are
not only to be rejected, they are to be flouted. Thus, “good” children are
to be terrorized, playgrounds and gyms are to be taken over for aimless
use, golf courses are to be torn up, library books are to be stolen and
destroyed, and so on. But perhaps the most graphic display of contempt
and malice shown by lower-class gang boys toward the school system isdefecating on a teacher’s desk.
The final element of Cohen’s theory is the introduction of a peer
group or, more accurately, a gang context through which the rejectedand resentful lower-class boy can nurture his growing feelings of hostil-
ity and bolster a damaged self-concept. At this point, Cohen is careful to
specify that not all working- or lower-class boys caught in this predica-ment begin to associate with delinquent peers. Because of family, neigh-
borhood, personality, and other conditions, some working-class males
adopt a “college-boy” response, which is based on success at school andin the conventional, middle-class world altogether. Others, perhaps most,
adopt a “corner-boy” response, which represents an acceptance of the
lower-class male’s situation and an attempt to make the best of a badsituation. The residue, a numerical minority, turn to delinquency.
The theoretical scenario of Cohen’s explanation of delinquency is
depicted graphically in Figure 7.
Evaluation Recall that Cohen’s theory is based on several
assumptions. Evidence on the first assumption is fairly clear; lower-classyouth generally doperform poorly in school relative to other students.
From the early studies of sociologists at the University of Chicago, from

146 theories of delinquency
which there came such works as The Gang by Frederick Thrasher ( 1927)
andElmtown’s Youth by August Hollingshead ( 1949), to more recent
research of a wide methodological variety (Polk and Schafer, 1972; Harvey
and Slatin, 1975; Liazos, 1978), there emerges the conclusion that lower-
class youth (and often ethnic minority youth) perform poorly,
academically and socially, in school. Indeed, much of this evidence
suggests that lower-class juveniles are expected by teachers and schooladministrators to perform at academic levels below those of middle-
class students, and the effect of such lower expectations on eventual
performance cannot be ignored.
One example of the influence of school administration expecta-
tions on student performance is the tracking system, in which studentsare placed into a multi-year program of instruction which is typicallydivided into college-oriented and trade or technical training-oriented
curricula. While a number of academic factors have been related to
the assignment of juveniles to particular tracks, social factors have alsobeen found to play a part in this selection, including social class (Schafer
et al., 1972; Kelly, 1978).
The second basic point of Cohen’s thesis, that school performance
is related to delinquency, has also been supported by research. In fact,this has been one of the most consistently documented relationships
in recent literature (Hirschi, 1969; Offord et al., 1978; Wiatrowski et al.,
1982; Rogers and Mays, 1987; Tygart, 1988).
1
An acceptance of Cohen’s thesis leads to the conclusion that school
failure leads to dropping out, which leads to delinquency. In one ofFigure 7

lower-class-based theories of delinquency 147
the most careful analyses of this relationship, Delbert Elliott and Harwin
Voss ( 1974) provide some very interesting information. They investi-
gated the correlation between school dropout and delinquency by
closely monitoring the annual school performance and delinquency
records of 2000 students in California, from the ninth grade to one year
after the expected date of graduation from high school (twelfth grade).
As with several other studies, these researchers found that those
students who had dropped out of school during this monitored timehad higher rates of delinquency than those who had graduated. The
expected causal ordering of this relationship, however, was not sup-
ported. Instead, the study revealed that rates of delinquency (as mea-sured by police contacts and self-reports) peaked in the time just before
dropping out and declined in each subsequent check period. Accord-
ing to this study, then, dropping out may be a delinquency-reducing solu-
tionto school problems rather than the starting point for a delinquent
career, as Cohen’s theory suggests. This conclusion is further justifiedby the finding that delinquency rates of dropouts are lower for thosewho married and, to some extent at least, found employment. That is,
dropouts who not only eliminate school problems by dropping out
but who also bolster their efforts to assume adult status by marrying orgaining employment have the lowest rates of delinquency.
The causes of school problems which led to dropping out were
analyzed according to a variety of possibilities, including self-esteem,academic abilities, feelings of isolation and alienation (at home, in the
community, or at school), and peer associations. In general, Elliott and
Voss conclude that low academic achievement is strongly related todropping out, as are isolation and alienation from the school. Social
class is not examined relative to dropping out per se, but Elliott and
Voss did find that social class is related to exposure to dropouts. More-over, in another investigation of school dropout and delinquency, Elliott
(1966) found that the relationship between dropping out and delin-
quency was stronger for lower-class boys than for middle-class youth,
a finding which supports Cohen’s thesis.
A replication of the Elliott and Voss study, however, failed to
duplicate their findings. Using arrest records of 567 male youth in
Philadelphia, Thornberry et al. ( 1985) assessed the short- and long-
term effects of dropping out of high school among those who left

148 theories of delinquency
school at ages 16,17, and 18. In general, the results indicated that
arrest rates increased soon after dropping out of school and remained
relatively high until the youth reached their early 20s. Furthermore,
the data indicated a general increase in arrest rates among all youth,whether or not they dropped out of school, from about age 13 to 16,
with a leveling off and gradual decline until age 25, when the fol-
low-up period ended. This age pattern of criminality is consistentwith other longitudinal studies (see, for example, Gottfredson andHirschi, 1986; Tracy and Kempf-Leonard, 1996 :46–48). The pattern,
however, was affected by dropping out of school, after which arrestsincreased. Furthermore, the impact of school dropout was presentregardless of the social class background of the dropouts.
In addition, arrest rates were compared simultaneously with school
dropout, marriage, and unemployment among those in their early 20s.
The results showed that arrest rates were significantly higher among
dropouts than high school graduates, even when the dropouts became
employed. Marital status did not affect arrest rates much at all, amongdropouts or graduates.
Thornberry et al. conclude that the results offer no support for
Cohen’s theory, but that the data do lend support to other interpreta-tions of delinquency, such as control theory (discussed in Chapter 8).
However, Cohen predicted that rates of delinquency would increaseafter dropping out of school, particularly if the dropout became in-volved in a delinquent gang or subculture. While Thornberry et al. do
not offer any data on this subject, their general finding of increased
rates of delinquency among high school dropouts can be interpretedas providing support for Cohen’s arguments.
Moreover, a longitudinal analysis of male English students who had
left school showed significantly lower rates of offending (according toofficial records) among youth who were employed (Farrington et al.,
1986). The lower rates of offending among the employed were
particularly pronounced for 15- to 16-year-olds, those who were re-
garded as “delinquent-prone,” and for property offenses. The relation-ship between unemployment and criminality, however, was not affected
by in-school or dropout status. Again, though, the English data do notaddress the issue of joining gangs upon leaving school, nor do they
assess the school experiences of the youth before they left school. Since

lower-class-based theories of delinquency 149
the unemployed 15- to 16-year-old school dropouts had high rates of
delinquency, however, Farrington et al. suggest this subsample of youth
may be more “susceptible” to influence by delinquent peers ( 1986:351),
a proposition which would support Cohen’s thesis.
Continued research on this topic clearly indicates that the rela-
tionship between dropping out of school and delinquency is complex,
and is moving beyond the conceptualization that school dropout is
merely a cog in a larger explanation of delinquency. As noted previ-ously, there are several reasons for dropping out of school. Some re-
search indicates that non-school reasons may have more significance
for delinquency than do school-based factors (Fagan and Pabon, 1990 ),
while other studies reach the same conclusion as Elliott and Voss, namely,
that school-based reasons for leaving school have the strongest con-
nection with delinquency ( Jarjoura, 1993). In addition, several investi-
gations point to a variety of personal, environmental, and economic
conditions which can have important consequences for dropping out
of school and for the rate of delinquency among school dropouts(Hartnagel and Krahn, 1989; Figueira-McDonough, 1993; Jarjoura, 1993;
Kaplan and Liu, 1994). Also, Jarjoura ( 1996) presents longitudinal data
which suggest that dropping out of school is associated with higherrates of offending among nonpoverty (based upon family income) ju-
veniles, compared to youth living in poverty. Consequently, that school
dropouts have higher rates of delinquency than do graduates, or thatdropping out of school is followed by decreases or increases in delin-
quency, is not necessarily explained by the frustrating experiences of
lower-class youth in school, or by the lack of bonding with the schoolsetting, or by any particular theoretical explanation of delinquency
(Lawrence, 2007:100–107; Sweeten et al., 2009).
We should also be mindful that there could be longer-term con-
sequences of delinquency and dropping out of school, which mightbe masked by present feelings of peer acceptance and reduced strain
from continued negative experiences at school. It may be the case thatthose youth who derive little satisfaction from school, and who see
dim prospects of a successful life based upon school achievement, will
seek others with similar attitudes and values, and associate more withthese youth, in out-of-school activities. They may be encouraged to
seek employment, at lower-paying jobs, but with more prospects for

150 theories of delinquency
peer acceptance and short-term achievement than school could pro-
vide (Ellenbogen and Chamberland, 1997). In the long run, however,
these short-term choices could result in adult patterns of unemploy-
ment, feelings of despair, and low levels of life satisfaction (Hagan, 1997;
Lawrence, 1998:94–98).
Nonetheless, the documentation of class-related school problems, the
third assumption, is generally problematic. Several darts have been thrown
at the ineffectiveness of public education to reach and develop the po-tential of allyouth (Polk and Schafer, 1972; Liazos, 1978 ; Polk, 1984). Some
of those criticisms, such as irrelevant instruction, improper motivation, andintolerance of nonconformity to rigid rules, would certainly suggest thatdifferential class values between pupils and school officials might be a major influ-
ence on the higher failure rates of lower-class youth. But this class con-nection, which is clearly at the heart of Cohen’s argument, has not beencarefully researched or well documented.
The fourth major component of Cohen’s theory, that delinquency
is a gang phenomenon and that gang members derive psychologicalgratification from gang membership, has received mixed support from
other studies. On the one hand, there is considerable research evidence
that delinquency is social in nature, occurring in the presence of at least
two adolescents. However, the extent to which delinquency, even
lower-class male delinquency, is part of structured, antisocial gangs is
debatable (Jensen and Rojek, 1992).
Aside from the question of how much of lower-class male delin-
quency is gang related, there is mixed opinion concerning the psy-chological states of gang members. Somewhat consistent with Cohen’sthesis, Lewis Yablonsky ( 1970) contends that juvenile gangs, particu-
larly lower-class violent gangs, are best described as “near groups”because their core members are psychopathic and unable to establishprimary, stable relationships, even with each other, and hence do not
have the close interweaving of members with one another that would
characterize true groups. This view of gang personalities, however, iscontrary to most other studies of gangs (Thrasher, 1927; Bordua, 1961;
Short and Strodtbeck, 1965; Klein, 1971). Actually, few delinquents,
lower-class males or otherwise, are considered psychopathic or evenseriously disturbed, as Yablonsky maintains. In addition, there is in-
consistent evidence to support the contention that delinquency helps

lower-class-based theories of delinquency 151
to bolster one’s self-esteem (see Chapter 8 ). But whereas Cohen’s thesis
suggests inner conflict and psychological problems in the delinquent,
it does not require that we find psychopathology to maintain its basic
tenets. It does seem to require the search for an explanation related to
neurosis to solve a class-based problem, and personality studies do notappear to validate that aspect of his theory.
On balance, the totality of Cohen’s theory has not been empirically
verified. There is little doubt that America is socially stratified and that classdifferences are observed with respect to school performance. However,
that such differences are the cause of both school problems and, subse-
quently, of delinquency, particularly among lower-class males, has not beenconsistently substantiated. Nor has it been demonstrated that male youth
who have failed in school seek peer associations through which aggressive
and hostile acts of delinquency are committed against an overtly hated,but unconsciously admired, middle-class value system. It is also problem-
atic to try to explain just how failure in school becomes interpreted in
terms of a delinquent response, as opposed to what Cohen feels is a morecommon response among lower-class males, the adaptive, corner-boy re-
sponse. As Hyman Rodman ( 1963), Elliot Liebow ( 1967), Elijah Anderson
(1999), Jay MacLeod ( 2009), and others suggest, the disadvantaged often
display an ability to incorporate a basic conformity to a dominant, middle-class value system with the exigencies of their everyday lives (see below).
Cohen’s thesis has merit, however, in that it has pointed to a criti-
cal source of adolescent problems and juvenile delinquency—lack ofstatus and failure within the school system. And to the extent that he
highlights the qualitative distinction between youthful and adult law-breaking, in both motivation and pattern of conduct, Cohen made an
important contribution to the understanding of delinquency. If this
observation is accepted, then no theory of delinquency is adequatethat does not account for Cohen’s measuring rod.
Cloward and Ohlin’s Theory of Differential
Opportunity Structure
Specific Assumptions The differential opportunity theory has two
basic assumptions: ( 1) that blocked economic aspirations cause poor

152 theories of delinquency
self-concepts and general feelings of frustrations, and ( 2) that these
frustrations lead to delinquency in specialized gang contexts, the nature
of which varies according to the structure of criminal and conventional
values in the juvenile’s neighborhood.
key concepts
Differential Opportunity Structure The uneven distribution of legal and
illegal means of achieving economic success in a society, particularly as
these opportunities or means are unequally divided by social class po-
sitions, represents a differential opportunity structure.
Criminal Gang A juvenile gang primarily involved in theft activity is a
criminal gang.
Conflict Gang A conflict gang engages largely in violent behavior.
Retreatist Gang A retreatist gang is primarily involved in drug-related
behavior.
Discussion In contrast to Cohen’s explanation of lower-class
delinquency, the explanation of Cloward and Ohlin ( 1960) suggests
that lower-class male delinquents are goal-oriented beings, who are able
rationally to assess their economic situation and to plan for their future
accordingly.
This theory stems from a combination of two theoretical positions,
which are discussed elsewhere in this book. One position is that of RobertK. Merton ( 1957), who argues that lower-class crime and delinquency
result from a systematic exclusion of the lower class from competitiveaccess to legitimate channels that lead to economic success in this soci-ety (see Chapter 5). The other position, brought forth by Edwin
Sutherland ( 1939), maintains that criminal and delinquent behavior, like
all other behavior, is learned, primarily in close, primary group relation-ships and associations (see Chapter 7). The specific content, degree, and
duration of delinquent behavior depends on these associations.
Cloward and Ohlin combine the essential elements of Merton’s
theory of anomie and Sutherland’s theory of differential association to
propose that lower-class male gang delinquency is generated from blocked
legitimate economic opportunities through America’s conventional in-
stitutions, and that the specific nature of this delinquency is dependent
on the characteristics of the neighborhoods in which the delinquent

lower-class-based theories of delinquency 153
adolescents live (and to a slighter extent, on other significant associa-
tions, particularly with peers, that the adolescents make). These char-acteristics affect the opportunities for committing illegal acts. A major
contribution of this theory is the contention that the opportunity tocommit illegal acts is distributed unevenly throughout society, just asare opportunities to engage in conformist behavior.
Essentially, Cloward and Ohlin argue that lower-class gang de-
linquency occurs in three dimensions: criminal , conflict , and drug-ori-
ented orretreatist. They also contend that the predominance of one or
the other delinquent behavior patterns is largely dependent on theintegration of conventional and organized illegitimate values and behavior sys-tems and the integration of offenders of different ages in a neighborhood. Pre-
vious studies of gangs and general delinquent behavior in lower-classneighborhoods have emphasized the close connection that often existsbetween gang behavior and conventional, legitimate business and
governmental concerns (Kobrin, 1951; Whyte, 1955). Furthermore,
years earlier Thrasher, Shaw, and others of the influential school of
sociology located at the University of Chicago had consistently docu-
mented associations between delinquent gangs of different age levels
and between older gangs and adult offenders (Thrasher, 1927; Shaw,
1930,1931; Shaw and McKay, 1942). Cloward and Ohlin took this
work a step further by systematically connecting neighborhood inte-gration patterns with specific types of gang behaviors and by tying allof this in with Merton’s theory of means-end societal discrepancies
as the generating force of delinquent gangs.
According to the theory, a criminal pattern of gang behavior emerges
when there is the presence of organized, adult criminal activity in alower-class neighborhood. In this situation, adult criminals become the
success role models of the juvenile gangs. These adult role models serveas the tutors for the juveniles and as the developers of criminal skills
within that group. The relationship between the adult criminals and
conventional adults in these neighborhoods is described as “stable.” Apattern of accommodation and mutual interdependence emerges be-
tween these two adult groups, which filters down to the juvenile gangs
that flourish in the area. This accommodation is exemplified by the“fence,” who makes a little extra income by disposing of stolen goods
through a conventional business. Of course, local political and criminal

154 theories of delinquency
justice officials are also accommodative of the criminal behavior in their
neighborhoods, often offering protection and other preferred treat-ment to the criminals in exchange for personal gain and community
stability. The integration and accommodation between criminal and
conventional forces in a neighborhood combine to produce an em-phasis on neighborhood stability and order. Thus, gang behavior will
become theft oriented, not violence oriented. Behavior is supposed to
be businesslike and disciplined, not irrational or tempestuous. AsCloward and Ohlin put it, “there is no place in organized crime for
the impulsive, unpredictable individual” ( 1960:167). And while gang
behavior is not organized crime in the sense in which that term is widely
used, to connote powerful families in virtual control of large-scale crimi-
nal activity, Cloward and Ohlin find that the organization and disci-
pline necessary in fruitful gang conduct preclude the impulsive andirrational people.
In some lower-class neighborhoods a stable, organized pattern
of adult criminality fails to develop, although the discrepancy betweensocietal success goals and accessibility to legitimate means of achiev-
ing success still exists for the local residents. Furthermore, in these
areas living conditions in general are unstable and transient. Adult rolemodels for juveniles, either criminal or conventional, do not develop.
The result is the emergence of what Cloward and Ohlin call a conflict
form of gang behavior. In this type of gang, violence becomes pre-
dominant. The violent behavior in these gangs, however, is notchar-
acterized as stemming primarily from psychopathic personalities or fromreaction formation, although the youths in these gangs are describedas “acutely frustrated.” The major reason for the emergence of con-
flict gangs in these lower-class neighborhoods is the absence of a stable
system of social control, which can be exerted by either criminal adultor conventional adult models. Adolescents use violence as a means
of obtaining some kind of status and success because nonviolent,
theft-oriented avenues of success are not available to them.
To illustrate their point, Cloward and Ohlin assert that violence
within gangs declines when a detached street worker is assigned to workwith them. This reduction in violence might reflect not only the abili-ties of the street worker, but also recognition by the gang members

lower-class-based theories of delinquency 155
that the street worker represents the end of rejection and the begin-
ning of access to legitimate success opportunities in their lives.
In some neighborhoods, whether or not they are characterized by stable
adult success opportunities (criminal or conventional ), gangs develop that are
dominated by drug use. These are the retreatist gangs, according to
Cloward and Ohlin. Their members are described as “double failures”
because they cannot succeed in either the conventional or the crimi-
nal world. The authors caution that not all double failures becomemembers of retreatist gangs. Some scale down their aspirations and
become “corner boys,” as Cohen has suggested. The extent to which
adolescents adopt a corner-boy or a retreatist response varies not onlyaccording to the personality of the youth, but particularly according
to his associations and circumstances.
An indication that retreatism is largely a response to one’s associa-
tions and circumstances is provided in the assertion of Cloward andOhlin that retreatist gangs often emerge afterinvolvement with crimi-
nal or conflict gangs. In fact, they suggest that inappropriate behavior
by some in the gang, abusive drug behavior or otherwise, can lead to a
rejection by the gang members and the subsequent development of a
retreatist life-style. It is also for this reason that Cloward and Ohlin hedgeon the description of these doubly rejected youths as members of a
retreatist gang or subculture. Although most gangs use drugs, it is doubt-
ful whether there are many drug-oriented gangs, as such. It would bemore accurate, therefore, to use the word “response” or “adaptation”
when referring to retreatism through drug use.
In summary, the basic components of Cloward and Ohlin’s theory
of lower-class gang delinquency may be diagrammed as shown inFigure 8.
Evaluation The assumption that blocked economic aspirations affect
attitudes and cause frustration has been tested in a variety of ways and
has basically been found lacking. Interviews with lower-class youth,delinquent youth, or gang members simply fail to support the basic
assumption that lower-class youth hinge their feelings and behavior on
the door of perceived economic opportunity in their lives. One reasonfor this conclusion is the interaction among aspirations, expectations , and

156 theories of delinquency
behavior. In a comparative study of high school seniors from working-
and middle-class neighborhoods in Atlanta, for example, Wan Sang Han(1969) found that working-class and middle-class students aspired to
essentially the same goals several years after graduation. When askedwhat they expected to have after graduation, however, there were marked
differences among the students. Working-class seniors expected to have
less than they desired. Middle-class students, on the other hand, still
continued to expect what they desired 10 years upon graduation, almost
as if they considered these goals a right or a natural phase of life.
An attempt to assess the interrelationship among a juvenile’s aspi-
rations and expectations and subsequent delinquency was reported inthe previously discussed study by Elliott and Voss ( 1974). These re-
searchers assessed the actual and anticipated amount of success or fail-ure among their sample with respect to educational and occupationalstatus. Simply put, the results of this test failed to demonstrate a rela-
tionship between failure and self-reported delinquency in support of
the thesis of Cloward and Ohlin. If anything, what little relationshipdid emerge tended to support an opposite conceptualization—that
lowered perceptions of occupational success follow delinquency rather
than precede delinquency. A similar conclusion was reached by anotherFigure 8

lower-class-based theories of delinquency 157
investigation of self-reported delinquency, with the qualification that
delinquency was more strongly related to perceived lower educationalopportunities than to occupational aspirations (Quicker, 1974)
Elliott and Voss did find that educational and occupational per-
ceptions of success were lower for lower-class youth than for middle-class adolescents. The relationships were not very strong, however, and
should not be used in support of class-linked theories of delinquency.
A study of gang delinquency in Chicago provides conflicting evi-
dence concerning the relationship between delinquency and perceivedopportunities for success (Short, 1964). On the one hand, the analysis
revealed that lower-class gang boys, both white and black, had higher
rates of official delinquency and higher average discrepancies between
occupational aspirations and expectations than nongang boys, although
the discrepancies were small. When the boys’ aspiration levels were com-pared with their fathers’ occupational levels, however, it was found that
white gang members had the smallest discrepancy of all groups studied,
including African-American gang juveniles, lower- and middle-class blackyouth, and lower- and middle-class white boys. With respect to perceived
educational opportunities, the highest rates of delinquency were recorded
for those juveniles who perceived educational opportunities as closed tothem, in agreement with the theory. However, among those who per-
ceived educational opportunities as closed, those who had the lowest as-
pirations also had the highest rates of delinquency, contrary to the thesis.
Other studies, either of delinquency in general (Hirschi, 1969) or
of gang delinquency (Short et al., 1965), provide further evidence re-
futing Cloward and Ohlin’s argument. In these studies, the most delin-quent juveniles are those with both low aspirations and expectations
rather than those with high aspirations and low expectations, as the
thesis would predict.
Perhaps the difficulty in this area lies with the imprecision of paper
and pencil measures of values. It may well be that lower-class andmiddle-class adolescents, as well as adults, dohave different goal per-
ceptions and that the perception of blocked opportunities may lead
to feelings of hostility and frustration. On the other hand, the per-
ceptions and values of those in the lower class, including lower-classdelinquents, are adapted from basic support of middle-class or con-
ventional standards. Those in the lower class must come to grips with

158 theories of delinquency
the reality of the situation and “stretch” or alter their values to ac-
commodate their present behavior (Rodman, 1963). Excellent liter-
ary and ethnographic descriptions of this process are found in Joyce
Carol Oates’ Them (1969) , Elijah Anderson’s Code of the Streets (1999),
Elliot Liebow’s Tally’s Corner (1967), and Jay MacLeod’s Ain’t No Makin’
It (2009). Paper and pencil tests, it may be argued, simply cannot
measure or describe the complexities of these relationships.
Another view is that the wrong dimensions of opportunity have
been used in studying the attitudes of juveniles. Farnworth and Leiber(1989), for example, argue that contrasts between economic goals and
educational expectations yield the best indicators of delinquency. Us-
ing self-reported measures of delinquent behavior among a sample of
15- to 18-year-olds in Seattle, Farnworth and Leiber report that rates
of delinquency were particularly high among those youth who had
high economic aspirations but low educational expectations. Thus, they
argue, blocked opportunities may indeed be predictive of delinquency,
but previous measures of these blockages were conceptually flawed.To these authors, therefore, the difficulties in finding support for this
type of theory have stemmed from the questions asked and the rela-
tive significance of these items to the juveniles’ lives.
One trend in this line of investigation is to increase the scope of
concern to include other structural conditions, particularly race andethnicity. La Free et al. ( 1992), for example, conducted a longitudinal
study of the impact of increased educational and economic opportu-
nities from 1957 to 1988 on rates of crime and delinquency. To sum-
marize a complex analysis scheme, the results of this investigation support
the contention that increased opportunities correlate with lower rates
of crime and delinquency among whites. Among African-Americans,
however, the results were different. For this group, crime rates increased
with increased educational and economic opportunities. More to the
point of this discussion, among African-American youth, rates of
delinquency decreased in association with “female-headed families” (p.
177). This conclusion is contrary to strain theory and most particularly
to Moynihan’s analysis (see next section). The authors suggest that straintheory might be an adequate explanation of criminality among whites,but not among African-Americans. They further suggest that among
African-Americans the perception of blocked opportunities might be a

lower-class-based theories of delinquency 159
better predictor of crime and delinquency than the actual existence of
these barriers (p. 178). This view has some support in the literature
(Simons and Gray, 1989).
Furthermore, Emilie Allan and Darrell Steffensmeier ( 1989) pro-
vide evidence which suggests that youth in America are motivated byeconomic considerations. In essence, they conclude that arrest rates
(for economic crimes) of juveniles ( 13–17) are lower when full-time
employment is high, even when controlling for minority status, house-
hold activities, residential mobility, region, prison commitments, and
relative size of police force. For young adults, however, “marginal
employment” (for example, low wages and hours) is more stronglyrelated to arrest rates than is the condition of employment per se.
The results for youth are consistent with anomie theory. Employed
youth, for instance, may be less “susceptible to peer subcultures and tothe attractions of illegitimate alternatives to the labor market” (p. 119). In
addition, these youth would likely have less-stigmatizing backgroundsand more reasons for continued legitimate employment than wouldunemployed juveniles. While none of these factors demonstrates that
today’s young people are only, or even primarily, motivated by economic
considerations, the results of this study certainly give credence to theview that employment is important to American youth today. The im-
portant point, of course, is the continued investigation of delinquency
to monitor such factors and to adapt or adjust relevant theoriesaccordingly.
Cross-cultural research might shed additional information on the
impact of strain or blocked opportunities on delinquency, especiallyin societies with different cultural and/or economic characteristics than
might be found in Western countries. The importance of economic
success to youth in the Philippines, for example, must be couchedwithin a larger sociocultural framework which emphasizes social and
familial cooperation and support. Thus, the importance of strain theories
to explain delinquency in this society is lessened (Shoemaker, 1992).
Of course, international studies of all explanations of crime and delin-
quency are needed for a fuller appreciation of the strengths and weak-
nesses of these theories.
The second assumption of Cloward and Ohlin’s argument,
that lower-class gangs become specialized according to the type of

160 theories of delinquency
neighborhood in which they exist, has received more support in
the literature than the first assumption. Irving Spergel ( 1964) exam-
ined the nature of juvenile gangs in three predominantly lower-class
neighborhoods and concluded that gang specialization did appear.
The specific content of these gangs, however, did not duplicateCloward and Ohlin’s criminal, conflict, and drug typology. For ex-
ample, Spergel could not detect a specific drug subculture, or juve-
nile gang, in any of the three neighborhoods, although drug usewas practiced in a limited way in each area.
2 In addition, Spergel’s
analysis differentiated the criminal subculture of Cloward and Ohlininto a racket subculture and a general theft subculture.
Spergel’s study also demonstrated a connection between gang de-
linquency and neighborhood integration, both conventional-criminalintegration and age-level integration. The racket (career theft, orga-nized crime) subculture was found in a neighborhood having residen-
tial stability and organized crime. In this neighborhood, Spergel noted
a connection between both conventional and criminal adult activitiesand between the criminal activities and the dominant forms of con-
duct in the juvenile gangs, such as loan sharking, policy or numbers
games, off-track betting, drug selling, and prostitution. The gang mem-bers from “Racketville” exhibited a stronger criminal orientation
(although no more delinquent behavior) than the gang members in the
other two neighborhoods. A dominant role model for the delinquentsin Racketville was the adult racketeer, and the major means of getting
ahead for them were “connections,” as opposed to luck, ability, or
education.
A fighting or conflict subculture was found in an area with high
rates of public assistance, psychiatric treatment, infant mortality, con-gestion, physical deterioration, and low income. The delinquents inthese neighborhoods also had the least amount of stability of all three
areas. Consistent with Cloward and Ohlin’s predictions, the integra-
tion of “Slumtown” was very low. Petty criminals occupied the streets.Respected adults in the area, conventional or criminal, were hard to
locate. Deference to older delinquents by younger ones was also not
in evidence.
The third neighborhood studied by Spergel, “Haulburg,” was
lower-class by some economic criteria, but in many ways more

lower-class-based theories of delinquency 161
middle-class than the other two areas, standing midway between
Racketville and Slumtown in terms of neighborhood integration andadult criminal organization. Gang behavior in Haulburg was composed
of some violence but more theft, such as car theft, apartment burglary,
and store holdups. This type of gang was not predicted by Clowardand Ohlin, but the relationship between this gang’s behavior and its
neighborhood characteristics does not contradict the thesis.
A study by James Short and Fred Strodtbeck in Chicago also gen-
erally supports the idea of gang specialization, although the specificnature of the specialization is, again, not in perfect agreement with
Cloward and Ohlin (Short and Strodtbeck, 1965). In this study no crimi-
nal subculture, as such, was discovered. Instead, several cliques within
conflict gangs would break off and engage in “semi-professional theft,”
such as burglary, auto stripping, and shoplifting. To some extent, Shortand Strodtbeck feel that there may be a “parent delinquent subcul-
ture” which characterizes all gangs in general and from which more
specialized gang activity may develop.
On many other accounts, however, this research lends little sup-
port to Cloward and Ohlin’s thesis. There was no evidence that thesegang boys were driven by frustrations derived from perceived blockedeconomic aspirations.
Because dominant themes among these gangs were fighting and
sexual activity, Short and Strodtbeck point out that a major concernamong lower-class gang members is the development and maintenance
of a “rep” for both physical and sexual prowess. This concern is high-
lighted by the general description of adolescent gang behavior as “risk-taking,” with little long-term profit making involved.
Research using mathematical models has also shown that delinquent
behavior is somewhat specialized (Wolfgang et al., 1972; Bursik, 1980;
Rojek and Erickson, 1982; Tracy et al., 1990). Other analyses have also
noted specialization among juvenile offenders, but have concluded thata more predominant “career” pattern is offense versatility which tendsto stabilize in more specialized categories with increasing age (Farrington
et al., 1988; Rankin and Wells, 1985). Others suggest that there are dif-
ferent age peaks for particular crimes. Steffensmeier et al. ( 1989), for
example, report that arrest rates for public order offenses have a higherage apex than do such “youth-oriented” crimes as automobile theft,

162 theories of delinquency
burglary, and vandalism (p. 817). They also speculate that “lucrative”
crimes, such as embezzlement, have relatively high age peaks, but this
conclusion is not firm (p. 827). This research does not focus on lower-
class gang behavior, however, nor does it specify any connection be-tween delinquency specialization and neighborhood integration patterns.Nonetheless, it is increasingly clear that juveniles can and do learn delin-
quent behavior patterns at work, including patterns previously thought
to be the preserve of adults (Wright and Cullen, 2000).
Overall, it would seem that Cloward and Ohlin’s theory has not
stood up to the test, a view fortified by an effort in New York Cityto utilize it as the basis for a massive program, known as Mobilizationfor Youth, which did not seem to have a significant effect on reduc-
ing serious delinquency (Empey, 1982). The paper and pencil tests
of the aspiration-expectation component of the thesis may not be
adequate to measure complex psychological processes. It is most dif-
ficult to capture all the nuances in human behavior and its motiva-
tion by asking people to respond yes, no, or maybe to short questionsor statements. Gang members may indeed share the feelings and atti-
tudes predicted by the theory; it is difficult to know for sure when
using attitude scales.
There is support, however, for the contention that lower-class gang
behavior is specialized and that the specialization is somewhat connectedwith neighborhood characteristics. In fact, connection between gangdelinquency and neighborhood organization is the strongest feature of
Cloward and Ohlin’s theory. In other words, the theory offers a
reasonably good explanation of the content of gang delinquency, with
the possible exception of drug use in gangs; it falls short in providing
an adequate explanation of whythe delinquency originally develops.
Miller’s Theory of Lower-Class Culture and Delinquency
Specific Assumptions The lower-class culture explanation of
delinquency rests on two very basic assumptions: ( 1) that clear-cut lower-
class focal concerns or values exist, independent of other values, and
(2) that female-dominated households constitute an integral feature of
lower-class life-styles and, as such, represent a primary reason for the

lower-class-based theories of delinquency 163
emergence of street-corner male adolescent groups in lower-class
neighborhoods.
key concepts
Focal Concerns Predominant values and norms that guide the day-to-
day behavior of people are referred to as focal concerns; in this con-
text, such concerns are thought to be characteristic of various social
classes, with attention devoted to the lower class.One-Sex Peer Unit This is a social unit that serves as an alternative source
of companionship and male role model development outside the home.
Discussion Both Cohen, on the one hand, and Cloward and Ohlin,
on the other, have brought forward what have been termed “strain”
theories. For different reasons, both propose that a basic cause of lower-class gang delinquency is a structurally imposed barrier or obstacle to success
in the society. That such a structural strain is not a requisite for an explanation
of lower-class gang delinquency is the contention of Walter Miller.
In1958, Miller summarized the tenets of what was to become a
highly politicized explanation of lower-class gang delinquency. Essen-tially, his thesis was that lower-class gangs are male-oriented and street-oriented groups, and that these characteristics do not develop by chance.
The characteristics of lower-class gangs, including their behavior, re-
flect the characteristics notof the gangs’ neighborhoods but, instead,
of a generic lower-class cultural system.
According to Miller, the key components of the lower-class culture
are best described as “focal concerns,” of which there are six: ( 1) trouble,
(2) toughness, ( 3) smartness, ( 4) excitement, ( 5) fate, and ( 6) autonomy.
Trouble involves run-ins with authority, police, bureaucratic per-
sonnel, or others. It also includes, for men, problems associated withfighting or sexual activity accompanied by drinking and, for women,
complications associated with sexual activity.
Toughness is characterized as a concern for physical prowess and
strength, so-called masculine traits (as exhibited by bravery and sexual skills,often symbolized through tattooing and shown by lack of emotion).
Smartness represents an ability to outwit someone through mental
gymnastics. It involves being able to “play the game,” to hustle the John,so to speak, particularly in the setting of the street.

164 theories of delinquency
Excitement represents a heightened interest in the “thrill”—par-
ticularly experienced through alcohol, sex, gambling, “making the
rounds,” and “going out on the town.” It is considered a periodic
adventure, often followed by, or preceded by, a period of inaction,
referred to as “hanging out.”
Fate includes the feeling that one’s future is out of his hands, be-
yond his control, not necessarily because of religious powers, but morebecause of the strong forces of destiny or magic.
The last focal concern, autonomy, contains paradoxical elements.
On the surface, Miller argues that autonomy represents a strong desireon the part of lower-class people to be independent of external controls(the “boss” or a spouse, for example). Underneath all this manifested
independence, however, is a consistent pattern of seeking out nurturing
situations, such as a steady job or a comforting wife, or perhaps a periodof confinement, particularly after a round of trouble or excitement.
The focal concerns of a lower-class culture relate to delinquency
in two ways. First, the values of lower-class life often result in theabsence of the father, or any other significant male role model, in the
home. Thus, many adolescent boys leave the home in search of male
identities in street gangs, called by Miller “one-sex peer units”(1958:14). Second, within the gang, needs and behaviors develop that
areconsistent with the focal concerns of the lower class. According to
Miller, lower-class gang members are not psychologically disturbed.Instead, gang members typically represent the most “able” male young-
sters in a neighborhood, in terms of both physical abilities and “per-
sonal competence.”
The motivation for delinquency, in this theoretical context, is the
need among most adolescents, but heightened for lower-class malesbecause of female-oriented households, to “belong” and to be posi-tively recognized—that is, to have “status” among their peers. Fulfill-
ment of these needs is sought in street-corner gang membership.
Because the behavior in these gangs is guided by lower-class focal con-cerns, it will “automatically” go against certain laws, such as laws regu-
lating aggressive behavior. Rather than being nonconformist and
“driven,” gang members are behaving in stable, conforming, and “nor-mal” fashion, according to the norms and values of their “most signifi-
cant cultural milieu” (Miller, 1958:18).

lower-class-based theories of delinquency 165
Diagrammatically, Miller’s thesis can be presented as shown in
Figure 9.
Evaluation With respect to the first assumption of the theory, the
reader might be of the opinion that the focal concerns described above
are, to some extent, as much a part of the middle class as the lower
class. This situation indicates a blending of class-related cultural values
and life-styles. The blending can occur as a result of the incorporationof middle-class values among the lower class, or vice versa.
There are many social commentators who basically agree with the
notion that there is a lower-class culture, a set of life-styles and valuesunique to the lower class. A popularized version of this concept is the
“culture of poverty,” most often associated with Oscar Lewis’ ethno-
graphic studies of poverty in Latin American cultures (Lewis, 1961,1966).
Later, Edward Banfield ( 1968) took up this theme in describing the ills
of the modern urban center. In this treatise, Banfield suggests thatpoverty represents a cycle in which lackadaisical attitudes and present-time orientations produce low educational aspirations and achievements,
which result in low occupational attainment, which is equated with
low social class attainment and, often, with poverty.
In addition, Marvin Wolfgang and Franco Ferracuti ( 1967) con-
tend that violence, manifested criminally in such acts as homicide andassault, is part of a subculture of values and norms that legitimate theuse of violence in various social situations. Moreover, this theory ex-
plicitly locates the subculture of violence among young males in the
lower social classes of Western societies, as well as in the populationsof many developing nations. Furthermore, according to some research
(Heimer, 1997), the mechanism for transmitting attitudes and values
Figure 9

166 theories of delinquency
favorable to violence involves peer associations, which is consistent with
a learning theory, or differential association, approach to delinquency(see Chapter 7). Additional research suggests that violence is an en-
hancer of social status, particularly among disadvantaged adolescent maleswho are not doing well academically in school (see Chapter 8). Vio-
lence can also become a mechanism for status enhancement among
females (Kraeger, 2007). While there has been inconsistent support for
this theory (Shoemaker and Williams, 1987; Kraeger, 2007), the fact
remains that it represents another attempt to locate specific values andbehavioral norms in the lower social classes.
Whether the life-style of the poor represents a cultural set of val-
ues consciously passed along from one generation to the next, or whetherthis life-style is a rational, logical adaptation to a continuous set of prob-
lems and obstacles to achievement, is subject to debate (Liebow, 1967).
In either case, research evidence accumulated since the end of World
War II has supplied somesupport for a basic tenet of Miller’s thesis—
that a definite set of values and life-styles exists among the poor of
Western societies.
The rich, detailed ethnographic accounts of the lower class do
not, of course, duplicate the specific focal concerns outlined in Miller’sthesis. More importantly, these accounts rarely discuss crime and de-
linquency as separate aspects of lower-class behavior, sometimes barely
at all. Poverty engenders a variety of problems, it would seem, whilecrime and delinquency, in this view, are manifestations of the larger
problem of poverty.
It is with regard to the second assumption of Miller’s thesis that any
direct attention has been applied. This assumption, again, is that a com-mon facet of lower-class culture and life-styles is the matriarchal home,
and the presence of female-led households contributes directly to lower-class male delinquency. Attempts to test this proposition, however, have
largely focused on the issue of race rather than social class. This attention
to the relationship between family structure and delinquency, by race ,i s
largely attributable to a controversial report issued by Daniel Patrick
Moynihan in 1965. In essence, Moynihan argued that the contemporary
urban African-American population was becoming divided into two
definite sections, a stable middle class and a deteriorating lower class. This
deteriorating lower-class segment of blacks was directly related to the

lower-class-based theories of delinquency 167
presence of female-dominated households , which, in turn, was traceable
in American history to the breakup of the African-American family
structure during the period of slavery (Moynihan, 1965). The presence
of female-dominated households leads Moynihan to conclude that thelower-class African-American family is inordinately involved in a “tangleof pathology” ( 1965:29), which includes, among a host of social prob-
lems, a high rate of delinquency. A major attack on Moynihan was nota repudiation of his factual information as much as a shifting of respon-sibility for the plight of African-American from the contemporary white-
dominated society to an unalterable historical legacy.
Now, instead of describing the roots of lower-class male delin-
quency, a central component of Miller’s thesis had been transformedinto a racial issue, at the apex of racial problems in America, no less.
3
Besides this transformation, Moynihan failed to make any reference to
Miller’s thesis in his report, a point which further allowed the ensuing
controversy to take on racial tones rather than class issues.
The issue of family structure and delinquency has a lengthy re-
search tradition of its own.4 For the moment, it is sufficient to discuss
attempts to test the assumption that female-dominated households lead
to, or correlate with, delinquency among blacks, or within the lowerclass. Historically, the presence of female-dominated households within
the lower class or among African-Americans has been less than half, on
an absolute scale (Rosen, 1969), although it has been higher than among
whites.
In1990,64 percent of African-American children were living with
both natural parents, and this figure was 81 percent for Hispanic children
(Statistical Abstracts, 1994:63,66). In 1997,35 percent of African-Ameri-
can children and 64 percent of Hispanic children were living with both
parents (U.S. Bureau of the Census, March Current Population Survey,1998: Figure POP 5). In 2000, these figures increased to 38 percent for
African-American and 65 percent for Hispanic and children (Federal In-
teragency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2001:6). In 2008,37.5
percent of African-American children less than 18 years of age lived with
both parents; 31.3 percent lived with both natural parents. However,
over half, 51.1 percent, lived with mothers only. Also in 2008,69.7 per-
cent of Hispanic children lived with both parents, 63.8 percent lived
with both natural parents. Nearly one quarter, 24.1 percent, of Hispanic

168 theories of delinquency
children lived with mothers only (U.S. Census Bureau, Current Popula-
tion Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, Table C 9, Chil-
dren by Presence and Type of Parent(s), Race, and Hispanic Origin, 2008.
Available online at http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam.html. Accessed September 8,2009).
While poverty is not the only measure of lower class, government
statistics usually report household characteristics relative to official defi-nitions of poverty. In 1996,10 percent of children in “married-couple
families” were classified as living in poverty. Among female-headed
families, the percentage of children living in poverty was 49 percent,
while this figure was 58 percent for African-American families and
67 percent for Hispanic families (U.S. Bureau of the Census, March
Current Population Survey, 1998: Table ECON1 .A). In 1999, the per-
centage of children living in female-headed households considered in
poverty had declined to 42 percent, to 52 percent for African-Ameri-
can children, and more sharply to 52 percent for Hispanic children (Fed-
eral Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2001:14). In 2006,
8 percent of all children in married-couple families were living in pov-
erty, while 42 percent of children living in female-headed households
were in poverty, the same figure as for 1999. Among African-Ameri-
cans, 12 percent of children living with both parents were in poverty,
compared to 50 percent of children living with mothers only. The fig-
ures for Hispanic children were 19 percent and 47 percent, respec-
tively (Child Trends DataBank, Figure 3, Percentage of Children in
Poverty, by Family Structure, Race, and Hispanic Origin, 2006 . Avail-
able online at http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/indicators/4Poverty.cfm; accessed September 30,2008).
Clearly, there are economic difficulties for families headed by fe-
males, no matter what race or ethnicity is involved. Governmentalpoverty figures, however, do not indicate rates of delinquency within
family structures, and the direct correlations among poverty or social
class, race and ethnicity, family structure, and delinquency have to beestablished by other sources of data.
It has been pointed out that the relative proportion of female-
dominated homes among African-Americans or the lower class is muchgreater than among middle-class whites (Moynihan, 1965; Rosen, 1969),
and thus the relatively higher rates of delinquency among these groups

lower-class-based theories of delinquency 169
may be related to matriarchal homes. When this assumption has been
tested, it has received contradictory support. Some research has notedno evidence that young males from lower-class or nonwhite homes are
delinquent because of female dominance in the households, whether
delinquency is measured in official terms or through self-reports (Rosen,1969; Berger and Simon, 1974; Austin, 1992). Other studies indicate that
lower-class juvenile males have stronger images of masculinity and aremore aggressive than middle-class youth (Fannin and Clinard, 1967), and
that incarcerated delinquents from female-based homes are more con-
cerned with masculine images and are more hostile than delinquents from
other home situations (Silverman and Dinitz, 1974).
On the whole, Miller’s thesis remains speculative and interesting,
often substantiated more by common sense and haphazard, perhapsstereotypical, observations than by systematic research. Although thereis some evidence that a lower-class culture of poverty does exist, it is
difficult to determine how influential this set of values and norms may
be on behavior, including delinquent behavior, when counterposedwith other norms and values, such as middle-class and racial/ethnic
standards and moral codes.
As mentioned earlier, there is a large amount of research on the
topic of family structure and delinquency. This topic is addressed inmore detail in Chapter 8, Control Theories. For the present discus-
sion, it is incorrect to assume that (a) single-parent homes are always
found in lower-class settings and (b) that single parents are incapableof controlling their children and thus reducing the risks of these youth
becoming involved in delinquency.
Summary
It would be easy to criticize all of the theoretical positions on lower-
class delinquency on the grounds that noneof them provides an ad-
equate explanation of delinquency among all adolescents, particularly
middle-class juveniles. This type of criticism, however, is irrelevant in
that the theories were not intended to explain middle-class delinquency.A theory should be evaluated in terms of what it purports to explain,
not in terms of anything else.

170 theories of delinquency
Scholars have debated the degree to which social class is a determi-
nant of delinquency (Tittle et al., 1978; Hindelang et al., 1979; Elliott and
Ageton, 1980; Krohn et al., 1980; Akers et al., 1981; Braithwaite, 1981;
Thornberry and Farnworth, 1982). Two reviews of this literature by Tittle
and Meier ( 1990,1991) fail to identify social class as a meaningful determi-
nant of delinquency. Others, however, conclude that social class does
affect delinquency, particularly when class is conceptualized in terms of
poverty and unemployment, rather than as a position on a status scale,and when serious and repetitive measures of delinquency are considered
in the relationship (Farnworth et al., 1994; see also, Hagan, 1992).
However, few would contend that delinquency in middle-class
settings is a rarity, or should not be addressed. Theoretical explana-tions of middle-class delinquency have been offered since the 1960s,
when self-report surveys and simple observations led people to con-
clude that this kind of behavior was, in fact, a reality. Moreover,
middle-class delinquency is not a thing of the past, but is clearly evi-
dent in contemporary self-report surveys, not only in Western soci-eties, but in developing countries as well (Shoemaker, 1992). One
explanation of such behavior is the influence of what some term a“youth culture” (Flacks, 1971). Basically, this view of delinquency
focuses on the impact of industrialization and social changes in the
twentieth century, particularly on the class structure in society and
on the socialization of youth. Youth are being categorized and treatedas a separate entity, which allows them to establish their own set of
norms and values, and many of these young people are living in
middle-class homes. This situation then leads to a separate youthculture, which can lead to the development of norms which permit,
or even encourage, deviance among middle-class youth. As some have
noted, however, there is probably not just one middle-class youthculture, but several, depending on the background and social char-
acteristics of youth, and these different cultures, or subcultures, have
different impacts on delinquency (Wooden and Blazak, 2001).
Of course, the youth culture theory is not the only explanation of
why youth from middle-class backgrounds commit delinquent or crimi-nal acts. However, theoretical efforts to identify factors specifically withina middle-class setting may be misguided. Some may argue that indi-
vidual traits, such as biological or psychological characteristics, offer a

lower-class-based theories of delinquency 171
better explanation of middle-class delinquency. A more persuasive
explanatory path, however, is to be found in the factors which areaddressed in the next two chapters, Chapter 7, differential association
theory, and Chapter 8, control theory (particularly social bond theory).
Neither of these explanations is based on specific class backgrounds,and the strength of these theories should not be evaluated on their
application to any one social-class setting. Rather, one of the attrac-
tions of these two theoretical explanations lies in their identification ofmotivating factors which would seem to be independent of class pa-
rameters (Albanese, 1993:59).
Considering only the basic assumptions and explanatory goals of
the subcultural theories of lower-class delinquency, several difficultiesemerge in attempts to establish the veracity of their propositions. In
addition to the previously discussed shortcomings of each theory, anyattempt to explain a complex behavioral phenomenon on a grand and
largely static condition is unlikely to be persuasively supported by re-
search evidence. Why, for example, do most delinquent youth, in gangsor otherwise, “reform,” so to speak, and abstain from criminality when
reaching young adulthood, as the theorists themselves suggest is the
case? Surely one would not argue that social class conditions change so
dramatically for these youth in a span of four or five years. The para-
dox here is that the larger, social class conditions remain relatively stable
while the behavior these conditions are proposed to influence changes.
Of the three theories discussed in this chapter, the one that is
best able to handle this paradox is Cohen’s middle-class measuringrod theory. In this case, delinquent youth would be expected to moveaway from delinquency when pressures to achieve through the school
system were lessened, such as upon reaching adulthood. In fact, some
research has shown that delinquency is immediately reduced whenthe youth are removed from the stress-producing conditions of school.
The value of Cohen’s thesis, however, resides in its connection with
an institutional factor, the school setting, as a basic element in thecausation of delinquency.
The utility of Cohen’s theory underscores another significant short-
coming of subcultural theories of delinquency. That is, whatever thecontent of class values may be, their interpretation is almost always derived
from interpersonal and institutional experiences. It is one thing to suggest

172 theories of delinquency
that social class values and norms exist; it is quite another matter to main-
tain that such values serve as the prime motivators of thought and be-havior, separately from other social or personal conditions. Such powers
of persuasion would be difficult enough to establish in a culture literally
dominated by social class distinctions. Frankly, to attribute to social classfactors an overriding influence on behavior in any complex, modern
Western society is unrealistic. Some maintain that strain theories do not
address individual responses and that attempts to test these theories withindividual-level data are misguided (Bernard, 1987). As Agnew ( 1987)
points out, however, attention to individual responses to blocked op-portunities is necessary in testing strain theories, otherwise the “causalchain would break down” (p. 282).
All of these comments should not be construed as suggesting that
social class values do not exist, or that such values may not be mutuallyincompatible. Of course, there are different values in different social
classes. The accommodations people make relative to class values, or
conflicts among values, however, reduce the explanatory power of socialclass-generated theories of behavior.
The strength of these theories lies in their sensitizing qualities. That is,
each suggests that a broad-based societal condition is responsible for a sig-nificant proportion of delinquent behavior. To rest an explanation of de-
linquency solelyon such factors is inadequate. To ignore societal conditions
in the explanation of delinquency, however, would be myopic and, most
probably, unproductive. In other words, attention to institutional condi-
tions, such as school problems or family relationships, in the explanation of
delinquency may be generated from an analysis of the structure of socialclass values. However, the desire to focus attention on social class values
and life-styles is quite strong, particularly among sociologists. The use of
social class as a basis for explaining delinquency is addressed again in Chap-ter10, when the radical approach to youthful misconduct is examined,
although the issues raised from Marxist, or neo-Marxist, and other radicalperspectives are not the same as those discussed here.
Notes
1. The subject of school-related factors and delinquency is also discussed in
Chapter 8, which looks at control theories. The relationship between poor

lower-class-based theories of delinquency 173
school performance and delinquency is mentioned at this point only to docu-
ment the validity of this aspect of Cohen’s thesis.
2. The inability to find an exclusive drug or “retreatist” subculture is not too
surprising to some (Lindesmith and Gagnon, 1964). Drug use and addiction have
long preceded the blocked economic opportunity conditions spelled out inCloward and Ohlin’s thesis. In addition, relatively high rates of addiction havebeen found among upper-middle-class occupational groups, such as physicians,whose legitimate opportunities for economic success would be much greaterthan for lower-class juveniles (Lindesmith and Gagnon, 1964 ). Furthermore,
the effects of drugs, including addictive drugs, vary according to the social situ-ations in which drug use occurs and can range over a variety of reactive moods.Thus, to conceptualize drug use as a retreatist reaction to failure is inaccurate.
3. Another example of transforming the problem of delinquency into a ra-
cial issue is the previously discussed analysis of IQ, race, and delinquency pre-sented by Gordon ( 1976); see also Sagarin ( 1980).
4. Parsons ( 1954), for example, presents an interesting theoretical connec-
tion among family structure, gender roles, and aggression. Parsons’ discussion,however, covers Western society in general and is not confined to criminalbehavior among lower-class males.
References
Adler, Freda, 1975, Sisters in Crime. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Agnew, Robert, 1987, “On ‘Testing Structural Strain Theories.’” Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency 24:281–286.
Akers, Ronald L., Marvin D. Krohn, Marcia Radosevich, and Lonn Lanza-
Kaduce, 1981, “Social Characteristics and Self-Reported Delinquency:
Differences in Extreme Types.” Pp. 48–62 in Gary F. Jensen (ed.), Sociol-
ogy of Delinquency. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Albanese, Jay, 1993. Dealing with Delinquency: The Future of Juvenile Jus-
tice, second edition. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Allan, Emilie Anderson and Darrell J. Steffensmeier, 1989, “Youth, Under-
employment, and Property Crime: Differential Effects of Job Availability
and Job Quality on Juvenile and Young Adult Arrest Rates.” AmericanSociological Review 54:107–123.
Anderson, Elijah, 1999, Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral
Life of the Inner City. New York: W.W. Norton.
Austin, Roy L., 1992, “Race, Female Headship, and Delinquency: A Longi-
tudinal Analysis.” Justice Quarterly 9:585–607.
Banfield, Edward C., 1968, The Unheavenly City. Boston: Little, Brown.

174 theories of delinquency
Battin, Sara R., Karl G. Hill, Robert D. Abbott, Richard F. Catalano, and J.
David Hawkins, 1998, “The Contribution of Gang Membership to Delin-
quency beyond Delinquent Friends.” Criminology 36:93–115.
Berger, Alan S. and William Simon, 1974, “Black Families and the Moynihan
Report: A Research Evaluation.” Social Problems 22:145–161.
Bernard, Thomas J., 1987, “Testing Structural Strain Theories.” Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency 24:262–280.
Bordua, David J., 1961, “Delinquent Subcultures: Sociological Interpretations
of Gang Delinquency.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science 33:119–136.
Braithwaite, John, 1981, “The Myth of Social Class and Criminality Recon-
sidered.” American Sociological Review 46:36–57.
Bursik, Robert J., Jr., 1980, “The Dynamics of Specialization in Juvenile
Offenses.” Social Forces 58:851–864.
Chesney-Lind, Meda, and Randall G. Shelden, 1998, Girls, Delinquency, and
Juvenile Justice, second edition. Belmont, CA: West/Wadsworth.
Clinard, Marshall B. (ed.), 1964, Anomie and Deviant Behavior. New York:
Free Press.
Cloward, Richard A. and Lloyd E. Ohlin, 1960, Delinquency and Opportu-
nity. New York: Free Press.
Cohen, Albert K., 1955, Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang. New York:
Free Press.
Ellenbogen, Stephen and Claire Chamberland, 1997, “The Peer Relations of
Dropouts: A Comparative Study of at-Risk and Not at-Risk Youths.”Journal of Adolescence 20:355–367.
Elliott, Delbert S., 1966, “Delinquency, School Attendance, and Dropout.”
Social Problems 13:307–314.
Elliott, Delbert S. and Suzanne S. Ageton, 1980, “Reconciling Race and Class
Differences in Self-Reported and Official Estimates of Delinquency.”American Sociological Review 45:95–110.
Elliott, Delbert S. and Harwin L. Voss, 1974, Delinquency and Dropout.
Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath.
Empey, Lamar T., 1982, American Delinquency, second edition. Homewood,
Ill.: Dorsey.
Fagan, Jeffrey and Edward Pabon, 1990, “Contributions of Delinquency and Sub-
stance Abuse to School Dropout among Inner-City Youth.” Youth & Society21:306–354.
Fannin, Leon F. and Marshall B. Clinard, 1967, “Differences in the Concep-
tion of Self as a Male among Lower and Middle Class Delinquents.”Pp.101–112 in Edmund W. Vaz (ed.), q.v.

lower-class-based theories of delinquency 175
Farnworth, Margaret and Michael J. Leiber, 1989, “Strain Theory Revisited:
Economic Goals, Educational Means, and Delinquency.” American Socio-
logical Review 54:263–274.
Farnworth, Margaret, Terence P. Thornberry, Marvin D. Krohn, and Alan J.
Lizotte, 1994, “Measurement in the Study of Class and Delinquency: Inte-
grating Theory and Research.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delin-quency 31:32–61.
Farrington, David P., Bernard Gallagher, Lynda Morley, Raymond J. St. Led-
ger, and Donald J. West, 1986, “Unemployment, School Leaving, and
Crime.” British Journal of Criminology 26:335–356.
Farrington, David P., Howard N. Snyder, and Terrence A. Finnegan, 1988,
“Specialization in Juvenile Court Careers.” Criminology 26:461–485.
Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2001, America’s Chil-
dren: Key Indicators of Well-Being, 2001. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office.
Figueira-McDonough, Josefina, 1993, “Residence, Dropping Out, and De-
linquency Rates.” Deviant Behavior 14:109–132.
Flacks, Richard, 1971, Youth and Social Change. Chicago: Markham.
Gordon, Robert A., 1976, “Prevalence: The Rare Datum in Delinquency
Measurement and Its Implications for the Theory of Delinquency.”Pp.210–284 in Malcolm W. Klein (ed.), The Juvenile Justice System.
Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Gottfredson, Michael and Travis Hirschi, 1986, “The True Value of Lambda
Would Appear to be Zero: An Essay on Career Criminals, Criminal Ca-reers, Selective Incapacitation, Cohort Studies, and Related Topics.” Crimi-nology 24:213–234.
Hagan, John, 1992, “The Poverty of a Classless Criminology—The American
Society of Criminology 1991 Presidential Address.” Criminology 30:1–19.
———, 1997, “Defiance and Despair. Subcultural and Structural Linkages be-
tween Delinquency and Despair throughout the Life Course.” Social Forces76:119–134.
Han, Wan Sang, 1969, “Two Conflicting Themes: Common Values Versus
Class Differential Values.” American Sociological Review 34:679–690.
Hartnagel, Timothy F. and Harvey Krahn, 1989, “High School Dropouts,
Labor Market Success, and Criminal Behavior.” Youth & Society20:416–444.
Harvey, Dale G. and Gerald T. Slatin, 1975, “The Relationship between Child’s
SES and Teacher Evaluations.” Social Forces 54:140–159.
Heimer, Karen, 1997, “Socioeconomic Status, Subcultural Definitions, and
Violent Delinquency.” Social Forces 75:799–833.

176 theories of delinquency
Hindelang, Michael J., Travis Hirschi, and Joseph G. Weis, 1979, “Correlates
of Delinquency.” American Sociological Review 44:995–1014.
Hirschi, Travis, 1969, Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Hollingshead, August E., 1949, Elmtown’s Youth. New York: Wiley.
Jarjoura, G. Roger, 1993, “Does Dropping out of School Enhance Delinquent
Involvement? Results from a Large-Scale National Probability Sample.”
Criminology 31:149–172.
———, 1996, “The Conditional Effect of Social Class on the Dropout Delin-
quency Relationship.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency33:232–255.
Jensen, Gary F. and Dena G. Rojek, 1992, Delinquency and Youth Crime,
second edition. Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland.
Kaplan, Howard B. and Xiaoro Liu, 1994, “A Longitudinal Analysis of Mediat-
ing Variables in the Drug Use–Dropping out Relationship.” Criminology32:415–439.
Kelly, Delos H., 1978, “Status Origins, Track Position and Delinquency.”
Pp.446–452 in Leonard D. Savitz and Norman Johnston (eds.), Crime in
Society. New York: Wiley.
Klein, Malcolm W., 1971, Street Gangs and Street Workers. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
———, 1995, The American Street Gang. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kobrin, Solomon, 1951, “The Conflict of Values in Delinquency Areas.”
American Sociological Review 16:653–661.
Kraeger, Derek A., 2007, “When It’s Good to Be ‘Bad’: Violence and Adoles-
cent Peer Acceptance.” Criminology 45:893–923.
Krohn, Marvin D., Ronald L. Akers, Marcia J. Radosevich, and Lonn Lanza-
Kaduce, 1980, “Social Status and Deviance: Class Context of School, Social
Status, and Delinquent Behavior.” Criminology 18:303–318.
La Free, Gary, Kriss A. Drass, and Patrick O’Day, 1992, “Race and Crime in
Postwar America: Determinants of African-American and White Rates,1957–1988.” Criminology 30:157–185.
Lawrence, Richard, 1998, School Crime and Juvenile Justice. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Lawrence, Richard, 2007, School Crime and Juvenile Justice, second edition.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, Oscar, 1961, The Children of Sanchez. New York: Random House.
———, 1966, La Vida. New York: Random House.
Liazos, Alexander, 1978, “School, Alienation, and Delinquency.” Crime and
Delinquency 24:355–370.

lower-class-based theories of delinquency 177
Liebow, Elliot, 1967, Tally’s Corner. Boston: Little, Brown.
Lindesmith, Alfred R. and John Gagnon, 1964, “Anomie and Drug Addic-
tion.” Pp. 158–188 in Marshall B. Clinard (ed.), q.v.
MacLeod, Jay, 2009, Ain’t No Makin It: Aspirations and Attainment in a Low-
Income Neighborhood, third edition. Boulder, Colo.: Westview.
Merton, Robert K., 1957, Social Theory and Social Structure, revised and
enlarged edition. New York: Free Press.
Miller, Walter B., 1958, “Lower-Class Culture as a Generating Milieu of Gang
Delinquency.” Journal of Social Issues 14:5–19.
Moynihan, Daniel Patrick, 1965, The Negro Family. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Labor.
Oates, Joyce Carol, 1969, Them. New York: Vanguard.
Offord, D. R., Mary F. Poushinsky, and Kathryn Sullivan, 1978, “School Perfor-
mance, I.Q., and Delinquency.” British Journal of Criminology 18:110–127.
Parsons, Talcott, 1954, “Certain Primary Sources and Patterns of Aggression in
the Social Structure of the Western World.” Pp. 298–322 in Talcott Parsons
(ed.), Essays in Sociological Theory, revised edition. New York: Free Press.
First published in 1947.
Polk, Kenneth, 1984, “The New Marginal Youth.” Crime and Delinquency
30:462–480.
Polk, Kenneth and Walter B. Schafer (eds.), 1972, Schools and Delinquency.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Quicker, John C., 1974, “The Effect of Goal Discrepancy on Delinquency.”
Social Problems 22:76–86.
Rankin, Joseph H. and L. Edward Wells, 1985, “From Status to Delinquent
Offenses: Escalation?” Journal of Criminal Justice 13:171–180.
Rodman, Hyman, 1963, “The Lower Class Value Stretch.” Social Forces
42:205–215.
Rogers, Joseph W. and G. Larry Mays, 1987, Juvenile Delinquency and Juve-
nile Justice. New York: Wiley.
Rojek, Dean G. and Maynard L. Erickson, 1982, “Delinquent Careers: A Test
of the Escalation Model.” Criminology 20:5–28.
Rosen, Lawrence, 1969, “Matriarchy and Lower-Class Negro Male Delin-
quency.” Social Problems 17:175–189.
Sagarin, Edward, 1980, “Taboo Subjects and Taboo Viewpoints in Criminol-
ogy.” Pp. 7–21 in Edward Sagarin (ed.), Taboos in Criminology. Beverly
Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Schafer, Walter, Carol Olexa, and Kenneth Polk, 1972, “Programmed for Social
Class: Tracking in High School.” Pp. 33–54 in Kenneth Polk and Walter E.
Schafer (eds.), q.v.

178 theories of delinquency
Shaw, Clifford R., 1930, The Jack-Roller. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
———, 1931, The Natural History of a Delinquent Career. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Shaw, Clifford and Henry D. McKay, 1942, Juvenile Delinquency and Urban
Areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Shoemaker, Donald J., 1992 , “Delinquency in the Philippines: A Description.”
Philippine Sociological Review 40:83–103.
Shoemaker, Donald J. and J. Sherwood Williams, 1987, “The Subculture of
Violence and Ethnicity.” Journal of Criminal Justice 15:461–472.
Short, James F., Jr., 1964, “Gang Delinquency and Anomie.” Pp. 98–127 in
Marshall B. Clinard (ed.), q.v.
Short, James F., Jr., Ramon Rivera, and Ray A. Tennyson, 1965, “Perceived
Opportunities, Gang Membership, and Delinquency.” American Socio-
logical Review 30:56–67.
Short, James F., Jr. and Fred L. Strodtbeck, 1965, Group Process and Gang
Delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Silverman, Ira and Simon Dinitz, 1974, “Compulsive Masculinity and Delin-
quency: An Empirical Investigation.” Criminology 11:498–515.
Simon, Rita, 1975, Women and Crime. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
Simons, Ronald L. and Phyllis A. Gray, 1989, “Perceived Blocked Op-
portunity as an Explanation of Delinquency among Lower-Class BlackMales: A Research Note.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delin-quency 26:90–101.
Spergel, Irving, 1964, Racketville, Slumtown, and Haulburg. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 1994,114th edition. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Steffensmeier, Darrell J., Emilie Anderson Allan, Miles D. Haver, and Cathy
Streifel, 1989, “Age and the Distribution of Crime.” American Journal of
Sociology 94:803–831.
Steffensmeier, Darrell J. and Renee Hoffman Steffensmeier, 1980, “Trends in
Female Delinquency: An Examination of Arrest, Juvenile Court, Self-Report, and Field Data.” Criminology 18:62–85.
Sutherland, Edwin H., 1939, Principles of Criminology, third edition. Phila-
delphia: Lippincott.
Sweeten, Gary, Shawn D. Bushway, and Raymond Paternoster, 2009, “Does
Dropping out of School Mean Dropping into Delinquency?” Criminology47:47–91.
Thornberry, Terence P. and Margaret Farnworth, 1982, “Social Correlates of
Criminal Involvement: Further Evidence on the Relationship between

lower-class-based theories of delinquency 179
Social Status and Criminal Behavior.” American Sociological Review
47:505–518.
Thornberry, Terence P., Melanie Moore, and R. L. Christenson, 1985 , “The Ef-
fect of Dropping Out of High School on Subsequent Criminal Behavior.”Criminology 23:3–18.
Thrasher, Frederick M., 1927, The Gang. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tittle, Charles R. and Robert F. Meier, 1990, “Specifying the SES/Delin-
quency Relationship.” Criminology 28:271–299.
———, 1991, “Specifying the SES/Delinquency Relationship by Social Characteris-
tics of Contexts.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 28:430–455.
Tittle, Charles R., Wayne J. Villemez, and Douglas A. Smith, 1978, “The
Myth of Social Class and Criminality: An Empirical Assessment of theEmpirical Evidence.” American Sociological Review 43:643–656.
Tracy, Paul E., Marvin E. Wolfgang, and Robert M. Figlio, 1990, Delinquency
Careers in Two Birth Cohorts. New York: Plenum.
Tracy, Paul E. and Kimberly Kempf-Leonard, 1996. Continuity and Discon-
tinuity in Criminal Careers. New York: Plenum.
Tygart, Clarence E., 1988, “Strain Theory and Public School Vandalism:
Academic Tracking, School Social Status, and Students’ Academic Achieve-ment.” Youth and Society 20:106–118.
U.S. Bureau of the Census, March Current Population Survey, 1998.
www.bls.census. gov/cps/cpsmain.htm.
Vaz, Edmund W. (ed.), 1967, Middle-Class Juvenile Delinquency. New York:
Harper & Row.
Whyte, William F., 1955, Street Corner Society. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Wiatrowski, Michael D., Stephen Hansell, Charles R. Massey, and David L.
Wilson, 1982, “Curriculum Tracking and Delinquency.” American Socio-
logical Review 47:151–160.
Wolfgang, Marvin E. and Franco Ferracuti, 1967, The Subculture of Violence.
London: Tavistock.
Wolfgang, Marvin E., Robert Figlio, and Thorsten Sellin, 1972, Delinquency
in a Birth Cohort. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wooden, Wayne S. and Randy Blazak, 2001, Renegade Kids, Suburban
Outlaws: From Youth Culture to Delinquency, second edition. Belmont,Calif.: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Wright, John Paul and Francis T. Cullen, 2000, “Juvenile Involvement in
Occupational Delinquency.” Criminology 38:863–896.
Yablonsky, Lewis, 1970 , The Violent Gang, revised edition. Baltimore: Penguin.
———, 1997, Gangsters. New York: New York University Press.

This page intentionally left blank

interpersonal and situational explanations 181 7
Interpersonal and
Situational Explanations
181Historical Overview
Interpersonal and situational theories of delinquency are historically
placed in time between the development of individualistic theories and
the more recent labeling and radical perspectives. The interpersonal
theory of Edwin Sutherland, differential association , was developed dur-
ing the 1920s, from Sutherland’s earlier education at the University of
Chicago and from his continued contact with those associated withecological studies of criminality in Chicago, such as Henry McKay(Schuessler, 1973a,1973b; Sutherland, 1973).
In Chapter 5, which examined social disorganization and anomie, it
was stressed that community- and social-based explanations of delinquencywere unable to explain the behavior of individuals. In other words, these
relatively macro-level explanations did not provide a theoretical mechanism
for the translation of environmental factors into individual motivations.
Sutherland was well aware of the deficiencies of the ecological
studies of crime in Chicago. He was also well informed of the ethno-graphic studies of Shaw and McKay, which represented an effort tosupply some of the missing links in a total explanation of delinquency.
Sutherland’s theory of differential association, therefore, was an at-
tempt to “bridge the gap,” so to speak, between the atomistic, indi-vidualized explanations of the turn of this century and the emerging
environmental theories of delinquency of the 1920s and 1930s.

182 theories of delinquency
In a similar vein, the situational explanation of delinquency, most
often associated with David Matza’s use of the term drift(Matza, 1964),
represents an effort to focus on the connection between internally based
and societally based theories of delinquency. A major difference be-
tween Matza’s situational explanation and other explanations of delin-quency developed in the twentieth century, including Sutherland’s, is
the importance of human will and choice in behavior. According to
Matza, all explanations of delinquency are too deterministic. While it istrue that some external, or perhaps uncontrollable, factors influence
human behavior, it is also true that people have the capacity to modify
these influences and to choose what will affect their decisions and be-havior. Since human behavior is extremely complex, the specific deter-
mination of any particular delinquent act must be based on the influences
that are in effect in a particular situation.
Matza’s explanation of delinquency was proposed during the mid-
1960s, at a time when sociologists were becoming more and more dis-
satisfied with sociological and psychological causal explanations. Thetheory itself stands as a transitional statement between the earlier, de-
terministic depictions of delinquency and later perspectives on delin-
quency, which have tended to focus more on factors that influencethe description of behavior as delinquent rather than on the causes of
the behavior in the first place.
Generic Assumptions
A major assumption of interpersonal and situational theories of delin-
quency is the belief that human behavior, including delinquent be-
havior, is flexible and not fixed. Behavioral inclinations change according
Figure 10

interpersonal and situational explanations 183
to circumstances or situations. A second assumption of these theories
is that neither the delinquent nor the society in which he lives is de-viant or “bad.” Delinquency arises from the same general social condi-
tions as does nondelinquent behavior, and the same person may be
committing both kinds of acts at different times. A third assumption ofthese theories is that most delinquent behavior is committed in a group
or gang context. While the particular situation in which delinquent
behavior appears may fluctuate, the general setting will most typicallyinclude group norms and behavioral patterns.
Figure 10 depicts the causal flow of delinquency according to these as-
sumptions.
Two points should be stressed relative to Figure 10. First, both
peer associations and situational factors may independently lead todelinquent acts, even though they are thought to be related to eachother. Second, the proper termi nology to use in connection with these
theories is delinquent behavior, because such activity is presumed to be
situational, not indicative of long-term behavioral patterns or personalcharacter (Sagarin, 1975); that is, the behavior is delinquent, but the
individual ought not to be characterized as a delinquent, in the sense of
a continuing identity.
Differential Association
Specific Assumptions The best known interpersonal theory of
delinquency (and adult crime as well) is the theory of differential
association, developed by Edwin H. Sutherland. Unlike the developers
of many other theories of delinquency, Sutherland outlined the major
components of his theory in the form of propositional statements. Thesepropositions also represent the basic assumptions of the theory, and
they are discussed in detail here. Some of the major overriding
assumptions of the theory, however, include the following: ( 1) all
behavior is learned (that is, not genetically programmed) and, hence,
delinquent acts are learned behavior; ( 2) the learning of delinquent
behavior primarily occurs in small, informal group settings; and ( 3) the
learning of delinquent behavior develops from collective experiencesas well as from specific situational, current events.

184 theories of delinquency
key concepts
Differential Association According to the concept of differential associa-
tion, a youth commits an act of delinquency in response to an excess of
attitudes favoring law or norm violation, at that time , and that principally
he has attained this excess in association with others. Since this idea also
appears in the list of propositions which collectively define the theory, it
will be elaborated on later.
Differential Social Organization This concept represents an alternative to
social disorganization. Rather than arguing that certain environmental set-
tings are disorganized, Sutherland reasoned that such areas are organized
differently from other areas. In other words, there is some organizationin any social setting, whether or not that setting is conducive to crimi-
nality. This concept reflects the societal dimension of the theory of dif-
ferential association. At the individual level, young people commit de-linquent acts in accordance with delinquent associations. At the
community or societal level, norms, values, and behavior patterns are dif-
ferentially organized to make it more or less likely that a juvenile willcome into contact with, and be influenced by, delinquent values.
This concept is an important one. However, differential social orga-
nization has been neglected in most studies of differential association theory,and is difficult to analyze. Part of the difficulty is how best to measure
differential organization. One effort addressed the concept by examining
the social class composition of neighborhoods. This study failed to support
any differential impact of social class composition on a sample of “serious
juvenile offenders” (Reinarman and Fagan, 1988). However, as the authors
acknowledge, it is difficult to capture the complexity of a construct such as
differential social organization with a single measure. In fact, social class may
at best be an approximation of differential social organization. Other vari-
ables, such as the existence of crime prevention groups, levels of toleranceof crime in a neighborhood, and so on, may be better indices of this vari-
able. As indicated in Chapter 5, many of the contemporary studies of com-
munity and neighborhood influences on delinquency focus on the conceptof social disorganization. Future research in this area may continue along
this line of thought, but it does seem that a productive approach wouldbe to refocus attention on Sutherland’s idea, namely, that areas are notdisorganized so such as they are organized differently, some better for the
prevention of crime, others for the encouragement of criminality.

interpersonal and situational explanations 185
Discussion Sutherland formally proposed the theory of differential
association in 1939, in a new edition of his already successful textbook,
Principles of Criminology. This first enunciation of the theory contained
seven propositions. In subsequent editions of that book, as well as in
other publications, the theory was revised to include nine propositions.These nine statements represent the theory as it is currently
conceptualized (Sutherland and Cressey, 1978:80–83; italics specify
words from the original).
Proposition 1.Criminal behavior is learned , not inherited. Put in an-
other way, people do not commit crime because of in-born predispo-
sitions. Instead, they utilize previously acquired experiences in thecommission of crime and delinquency.
Proposition 2.Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other per-
sons in a process of communication. This communication can be either verbal
(or direct) or indirect.
Proposition 3.The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior oc-
curs within intimate personal groups. This statement allows for the influ-
ence of impersonal, mass media influences on behavior, but it clearly
stresses the overwhelming importance of personal relationships on norms
and action.
Proposition 4.When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes
(a) techniques of committing the crime, which are sometimes very complicated,
sometimes very simple, and (b) the specific direction of motives, drives, ratio-
nalizations, and attitudes. Thus, the learning of criminal behavior in-
volves not only how the behavior is to be committed, but also whyit is to be done.
Proposition 5.The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from
definitions of the legal codes as favorable or unfavorable. “Definitions,” in this
statement, refer to attitudes toward the law. This statement also recog-nizes that definitions or attitudes are not consistently or entirely favor-
able or unfavorable, but are most often, at least in American society,
mixed and conflicting for an individual.
Proposition 6.A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of defini-
tions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law.This statement represents the main point of the theory. It stresses thetransient nature of delinquency and it casts the delinquent in a situational
mold. This statement further illustrates a point made in connection with

186 theories of delinquency
Proposition 5—that exposure to delinquent norms and behavior is likely
to be inconsistent and mixed with simultaneous exposure to nonde-
linquent norms and behavior.
Proposition 7.Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration,
priority, and intensity. These terms exhibit an effort to qualify the effect
of definitions concerning the law on behavior. Frequency and dura-
tion have the same meanings they do in common usage. Priority indi-
cates that associations (whether delinquent or nondelinquent) formedin early childhood may take precedence in influence over later asso-
ciations. Intensity refers to the prestige of an association or, actually, to
the power of influence one person or group may have over another.
Proposition 8.The process of learning criminal behavior by association
with criminal and anticriminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that areinvolved in any other learning. Learning among humans, in other words, is
complex and includes much more than mere imitation or copying. At
the same time, delinquent and criminal acts are learned in the same
manner as all other human acts. The behavior may be different, butthe learning process through which the behavior develops is the same.
Proposition 9.While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs
and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values, since noncrimi-nal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values. Theft and honest
labor both have the same goal—making money to obtain some mea-sure of happiness and satisfaction in life. Thus, the goals of delinquentsand nondelinquents are often the same; the means, however, are dif-
ferent. Of course, this view of criminality is not unique to Sutherland
but has been offered by other sociologists, most notably by RobertMerton in the means-end theory of deviance discussed in Chapter 5.
Sutherland offers this proposition, however, in an effort to persuadecriminologists not to separate delinquent and nondelinquent acts onthe basis of different drives and goals. If we all behave according to the
same general goals, then other factors must be identified to explain de-
linquent and nondelinquent choices for reaching the same goal.
Some criminologists have suggested modifications of the concept
of differential association for the purpose of greater precision or in orderto expand the scope of the theory. Melvin DeFleur and RichardQuinney ( 1966), for example, reformulated the nine propositions. Us-
ing the logic and symbols of set theory, DeFleur and Quinney argue

interpersonal and situational explanations 187
that the theory of differential association could be formally tightened
if it were based on the concepts of symbolic interaction and attitudeformation. Their basic statement of crime causation, based on the prin-
ciple of differential association, is that criminal behavior stems from the
learning of “criminal motivations, attitudes and techniques” throughthe processes of symbolic interaction in close-knit, informal primary
groups (DeFleur and Quinney, 1966:14).
Daniel Glaser ( 1956) offers the concept of “differential identifica-
tion” as a more inclusive conceptualization of differential association.The theory of differential identification is stated as follows: “a person
pursues criminal behavior to the extent that he identifies himself with real or imagi-
nary persons from whose perspective his criminal behavior seems acceptable” (Glaser,
1956:440; italics in the original). The concept of differential identifica-
tion stresses the importance of group memberships and social roles inshaping one’s behavioral choices. In addition, the concept allows for
the influence of reference groups— groups to which a youth looks for
general evaluation and approval, whether or not he is in direct contact
with the group (see also, Haskell, 1960).
However, the largest number of suggested reformulations of differ-
ential association has been based on the principles of behavioral condi-tioning or “learning theory.” In heeding the earlier advice of C. R. Jeffery
(1965) to couch the concepts and principles of differential association in
terms of operant behavior theory, Robert Burgess and Ronald Akers (1966 )
proposed a step-by-step restatement of differential association according
to such ideas as reinforcement and punishment. The use of these con-
cepts does not offer a new theory, but they were substituted in an effortto place the key elements of the theory into testable constructs. Thus,
instead of saying that criminal behavior is learned mostly in primary groups,
Burgess and Akers contend that criminal behavior is primarily learned“in those groups which comprise the individual’s major source of rein-
forcements” ( 1966:146). This theme has also been applied by Reed Adams
(1973) in a call for the use of learning principles in general criminological
research.
While all of these suggested revisions have added some insight into
Sutherland’s formulations of differential association, they have not
significantly altered the basic principles of the theory. The identification
of reference group and nonsocial influences on attitudes and behavior

188 theories of delinquency
is quite important, but not entirely unrecognized by Sutherland. Es-
sentially, the reformulations of differential association according to theconcepts of set theory or learning theory have formally stated what
was already implicit, if not explicit, in Sutherland.
In addition, not all are in agreement that the formalistic features of
learning theory offer the most insightful interpretation of human learning(Halbasch, 1979). The argument here is that Sutherland’s theory of dif-
ferential association allowed for the influence of human emotion and
interpersonal feedback in the explanation of behavior, whereas behav-
iorist concepts imply an animalistic, noninterpretive response to stimuli,
characteristics which do not apply to humans. For these reasons, thefollowing evaluation of differential association is based on the theory
as proposed by Sutherland.
Evaluation The theory of differential association has not been totally
accepted by criminologists. Some of the sharpest attacks have focused
on the contention that criminal behavior is learned. It is argued by somethat this view is either too simplistic, in consideration of the complexity
of crime patterns and motivations, or that the gist of the statement adds
nothing new to an understanding of criminality, and that it downplaysthe influence of individualistic factors. According to these criticisms,
the theory may serve as a better explanation of why juveniles do not
commit acts of delinquency than of why they do commit offenses
(Glueck, 1962; Radzinowicz, 1966).
Sutherland and his collaborator, Donald R. Cressey, have cata-
logued challenges to differential association on at least a dozen pointsof wording, logic, and scope (Sutherland and Cressey, 1978). Ac-
cording to Sutherland and Cressey, some of these criticisms arisefrom errors of interpretation. For example, a common misinterpre-tation of the theory is that it deals only with actual contacts or as-
sociations with criminal or delinquent behavior. Were this the case,
the theory would not be able to account for the conforming be-havior of most police officers and court personnel, as well as the
differential involvement in delinquency of children from the same
family. Differential association, however, refers to association withattitudes and values (definitions) that are connected with patterns
of behavior, through secondary as well as primary contacts, and

interpersonal and situational explanations 189
criminality results from an excess of procriminal definitions over
neutral or anticriminal definitions.
Another erroneous criticism, according to Sutherland and Cressey,
is the failure of differential association to account for why people havethe associations they have. Two rebuttals are offered for this charge. One,the concept of differential social organization, defined earlier, does some-
what account for variations in associations. Unfortunately, the signifi-
cance of this concept has been lost in comparison to the attention givento differential association. Consequently, research concerning differen-
tial association has virtually ignored this principle. Second, the individu-
alized aspect of the theory is self-contained and does not have to accountfor why or how associations develop. Technically, this assertion is cor-
rect. It would seem, however, that if a theory as broad in scope as differ-
ential association is to be accepted, it needs to stress why associationsarise as well as what the consequences of the associations might be.
Another argument is that differential association does not account
for the influence of personality variables in the development of defini-tions relative to law violation. This criticism is a rather strict one inas-
much as the theory does allow for individual interpretations and
applications of definitions of legal codes. At one time, Sutherland feltit necessary to incorporate personality traits into his theory, but later
reflections caused him to question the wisdom of such modifications
(Sutherland, 1973). Part of the difficulty with incorporating personality
variables into the theory lies in determining which traits to include and
under what conditions to include them—that is, how they are to be
measured. To move beyond such particular traits and to charge thatthe theory generally ignores individual interpretations is, again, errone-
ous. The question then becomes not whether individual responses to
situational conditions affect behavior, but what kinds of responses af-fect behavior and in what ways.
Other complaints against the theory concern the measurement of
key concepts. For example, if, as the theory suggests, certain charac-teristics of associations are to have more influence on behavior than
other characteristics, such as intensity and priority, how are such quali-
ties to be measured and compared? Similarly, how is an excess of defi-
nitions to be objectively measured and applied to a particular act
(Sutherland and Cressey, 1978)?

190 theories of delinquency
Of all the criticisms levied at the theory of differential association,
the problem of measurement is the most serious. Several investigators
have commented on the difficulty of measuring a person’s definitions
of the law, their sources, and their qualifications (Cressey, 1952; Short,
1960; Stanfield, 1966 ). A major problem of measurement with this theory
is its historical and situational focus. Since most criminal offenders arediscovered after the fact, so to speak, reconstruction of thoughts and
moods at the time the act was committed is exceedingly difficult todevelop. When one adds to this difficulty the problem of reconstructing
prior events and influences on one’s attitudes and behavior, the task
becomes almost impossible.
Despite these methodological difficulties and shortcomings, there
have been empirical attempts to test the validity of the theory, with ju-veniles as well as adults. One empirical assessment of differential associa-tion relative to delinquency is the well-documented fact that most
delinquency is committed in a group context (Weis, 1980; Jensen and
Rojek, 1992). The overall significance of this finding for the theory of
differential association, however, is questionable. For one thing, the re-lationship does not speak to the issue of shared attitudes and values, nor
to the matter of excess of definitions favorable to law violation, eitherwithin the group or individually. In addition, the group nature of delin-
quency does not specify temporal conditions of causality—that is, whether
the associations occurred before or after delinquency was first or mostoften committed.
Specifically, with reference to delinquency, those issues concern-
ing the relationship between peer group associations and delinquencyhave been empirically studied. These investigations have generally sup-
ported the basic propositions of the theory (Short, 1957 ,1960; Reiss and
Rhodes, 1964; Voss, 1964; Jensen, 1972; Hepburn, 1977). For the most
part, however, the research has indicated that differential association is
only one of two or three causal explanations that is supported. In a
study of nearly 1600 white male junior and senior high school students
in California, for example, Gary Jensen ( 1972) found support for the
independent effects of differential association variables and family super-
vision variables on self-reported delinquency. That is, each set of fac-tors had a separate, unique influence on delinquent behavior.
Differential association variables were measured according to number

interpersonal and situational explanations 191
of close delinquent friends, perceptions of “trouble” in the neighbor-
hood, official delinquency rates of the schools attended, and measuresof the acceptance of attitudes or definitions favorable to the violation
of laws.
Research continues to document the importance of peer attach-
ments, and definitions favorable to law violation, in the explanation ofdelinquency. In a study of police records in Sweden, for example,
Sarnecki ( 1986) concludes that group activity is more important to the
offender than is the act of committing a delinquent offense.
Some comparative examinations of differential association and
other theories, especially social control theory (see Chapter 8), con-
clude that differential association is a better explanation of self-re-
port delinquency than are such social control factors as attachment
to parents and broken homes (Matsueda, 1982; Matsueda and Heimer,
1987; Paternoster and Triplett, 1988; Cashwell and Vacc, 1996; Hartjen
and Kethineni, 1999; Hartjen and Priyadarsini, 2003). Furthermore,
Matsueda and Heimer ( 1987) maintain that the important impact of
differential association lies in the concept of definitions favorable to
law violation.
A similar conclusion is reached by Thompson et al. ( 1984), who
conclude that differential association theory is a better explanation ofdelinquency than is social control theory. In this study, self-report
delinquency questionnaires were given to 724 male and female high
school students. The primary measure of differential association was
delinquent companions, and this factor was substantially more associ-
ated with delinquency than were such other variables as conventionalattitudes and attachment to parents, school, and peers.
In addition, Johnson et al. ( 1987) conclude that associations with
peers who use drugs are strongly connected with usage of a variety ofdrugs. The sample in this study was a collection of 768 students in a
private western high school. Differential association was measured by peerassociations and definitions favorable to drug use. The researchers alsoincorporated other variables into their study, such as parental, religious,
and educational attachments and conventional beliefs. They concluded
that differential association variables, especially peer associations, were morestrongly related to delinquency than were attachments or beliefs.
Nonetheless, Johnson et al. argue that their analysis supports attempts to

192 theories of delinquency
combine differential association with social control theory to produce a
“superior” explanation of delinquency (see also, Marcos et al., 1986;
Aseltine, 1995).
In a related study, Dembo et al. ( 1986) investigated the relationship
between attachment to drug-using parents and drug use among a sampleof junior high school youth (average age of 13) in South Bronx, New
York. In this investigation, differential association was conceptualized asa learning theory, and it was hypothesized that children of drug-usingparents would exhibit greater levels of drug use than would the offspring
of non-drug-using adults (all such behaviors were based on the responses
of the youths). The results indicated that adolescent drug use was highlyrelated to parental attachment, among those juveniles who indicated their
parents were low or moderate drug users. Among these youth, drug use
was quite low. The children of high-drug-using parents, however, werethemselves high drug users, but drug use among these youth was not
significantly related to attachment to their parents. These results suggest,
again, some interactive effect between differential association and socialbond theory, relative to adolescent drug use. Among the children of
low-drug-using parents, a combination of conformist behavior and strong
parental attachments tended to inhibit drug use. Those living in familieswhere parents are high drug users, however, may have learned to use
drugs, perhaps by observation, despite the level of attachment to their
parents. This point is reinforced by a longitudinal study of self-reporteddelinquency among high school students in California and Wisconsin.
This research concluded that strong social bonds affected choice and
influence of friends which, in turn, affected delinquency, althoughfriends’ behavior affected male delinquency more than it did female
delinquency (Erickson et al., 2000).
The theory of differential association appears to offer a reasonable
explanation of individual delinquency within environmental contexts,although the numerous critical comments concerning its scope and logic
cannot be ignored. Empirically, the theory is difficult to test, yet sev-eral attempts to assess its validity have generally been supportive. (See
Orcutt, 1987, for a defense of the testability of differential association
theory.) That differential association is not the only valid explanation
of delinquency is indicated by the importance of other variables
simultaneously compared with differential association items.

interpersonal and situational explanations 193
Some have challenged the often-noted group nature of delin-
quency by asserting that delinquency is inversely related (delinquents
have low group involvement) to peer group associations (Hirschi, 1969).
In part, these inconsistent predictions have been resolved by research
which concludes that delinquency is more common among those youthwho report having friendships with other delinquent, or unconven-
tional, youth. On the other hand, associations with more conformist,
or conventional, peers is correlated with lower rates of delinquency(Hirschi, 1969; Hindelang, 1973; Gardner, 1984; Thompson et al., 1984;
Elliott et al., 1985; Matsueda and Heimer, 1987).
A conceptually sophisticated analysis of friendship patterns and self-
report delinquency revealed differences by delinquency status, such as
more delinquent youth reporting more “conflicts” with friends
(Giordano et al., 1986). Nonetheless, there were many similarities in
friendship patterns between delinquent and nondelinquent youth. For
example, both youth expressed similar estimates regarding time spent
with friends, length of friendship, or caring and trustworthiness of friends.Thus, while the normative content of peer interaction may differ be-
tween delinquents and others, the patterns and dynamics of friendship
groupings may be similar. The conceptualization of friendship patternsin terms of a dynamic process promises to enrich the understanding of
the connection between peer relationships and delinquency (see also,
Meier et al., 1984; Dishion et al., 1995).
The investigation of the dynamics of peer relationships continues
to be an important topic of research on differential association theory.For example, two analyses of a longitudinal, national survey of over1700 youth (the National Youth Survey) support the influence of peer
associations on delinquency, but specify this influence. Agnew ( 1991)
concludes that high levels of interaction, as opposed to moderate orlow levels of interaction, with peers who are involved in serious forms
of delinquency (burglary, selling “hard” drugs, theft of items worth $ 50
or more, p. 57) contribute significantly to committing serious acts of
delinquency on the individual level. However, such peer interactionsdo not have an impact on minor acts of delinquent behavior.
In another analysis of the National Youth Survey data, Warr contends
that peer relationships dominate adolescent lives during the mid- to lateteen years. Also, the impact of peers is more important in the explanation

194 theories of delinquency
of delinquency than is age (Warr, 1993). Furthermore, Warr’s analysis finds
that despite a trend for delinquency and the impact of peers on behavior
to decline after adolescence, friendships, particularly recent ones, even
among delinquent peers, tend to last beyond adolescence. Warr acknowl-
edges that these findings may be tapping into what some refer to as a“party culture” among modern North American youth (Hagan, 1991), a
subculture which emphasizes the importance of peer friendships in find-ing ways, including illegal activity, to spend leisure time (see Warr [ 2002]
for a fuller discussion of peer effects on delinquency).
While Warr contends that the conclusions of this analysis support
some of the principles of differential association, it is recognized thatthe study does not irrefutably prove the theory. Nor does the study
overcome the many criticisms which have been aimed at this explana-
tion, such as those mentioned earlier in this chapter, and raised by oth-ers (Matsueda, 1988). In particular, the finding that delinquent peers
tend to remain friends, what Warr refers to as the “sticky friends”(p.35) concept, seems to contradict the conclusion that delinquency
declines with age. It is likely that both delinquent friends and delin-
quency decline after adolescence, but that for some, sticky friends
remain, and delinquency continues into adult patterns of crime.
In addition, Haynie ( 2001) suggests that the strength of differential
association theory, compared to social bond theory and other factors,may be overstated as a determinant of delinquency. In part, this con-clusion stems from the conceptualization of peer group influence in
terms of one’s connections to the group. When a person is directly
involved with the (delinquent) group and its members, is popular amongthe group’s members, and when the group’s members interact frequently,
then delinquency is more likely to occur. So, again, with respect to
delinquency, it is not just whether one associates with delinquent peersbut the nature and quality of peer associations that seem to matter. Some
research also suggests that the influence of peer associations may be
reduced by the presence of legal sanctions, or the threat of sanctions(Liu, 2003). To this extent, then, it would seem the power of friends
to influence criminal behavior may not always be determining, espe-cially if that influence leads one directly into criminal activity, but, again,this influence would probably be affected by the nature and quality of
peer associations.

interpersonal and situational explanations 195
The continued analysis of peer relationships, particularly the dy-
namics of these associations, may or may not always be in accordance
with the principles of differential association theory. At times, it seems
the interest in peer relations has become a separate conceptual issue.
For example, studies conducted at the Oregon Social Learning Centerindicate that even discussing deviance among male friendship groups
in early adolescence is associated with self-reported delinquency in mid-
adolescence (Dishion et al., 1996).
In some ways, this shift of focus may not be altogether a bad idea,
particularly since the total context of differential association theory isdifficult to operationalize. As Matsueda ( 1988:294) indicates, the cur-
rent state of research on this topic is becoming more integrated (see
Chapter 12). Thus, peer relations are studied in combination with im-
portant concepts connected with other theories, such as social bond
theory (see Chapter 8), with the aim of obtaining a more complete
explanation of delinquency. In this context, for example, the lossof
delinquent friends is associated with other changes in a juvenile’s life,such as changes in attitude, job prospects, relationships with family
members, particularly with parents, and so on (Mulvey and LaRosa,
1986). Conceptualizing peer relationships in this manner provides an
explanation for why delinquency begins and continues, as well as for
why it tends to decline in late adolescence.
Increasingly, the impact of peers, and differential association in gen-
eral, is understood to be a factor of social and cultural context. Themeaning, and importance, of friendships may vary by sociocultural set-
tings. In the Philippines, for example, the peer group is known as a barkada .
While the barkada is considered an important social grouping in this
country, especially among males, its existence has also been implicated in
studies of delinquency in the Philippines (Albada-Lim, 1969; Shoemaker,
1992,1994). The barkada may not cause one to commit crime, because
almost all males, and many females, belong to such a group from child-hood through life. However, committing delinquent acts as a memberof the barkada would likely be supported by group members and inten-
sify delinquent behavior, especially during adolescence. Again, however,
there needs to be a better understanding of how such intense socialpressure and support can be turned from criminal to conventional
activities, as people leave adolescence and enter adulthood.

196 theories of delinquency
In the inner cities of the United States, youth groups may serve a
totally different function than what is assumed in differential associa-
tion theory, or in studies of peer relationships in general. Among His-
panic youth, for example, it is contended that an almost constant threat
of violence and criminal victimization pushes one into group member-ships for protection, rather than for social and emotional support. In
this context, criminal behavior may be as much an attempt to survive
and protect oneself as an effort for personal gain at the expense of others(Pabon et al., 1992).
These findings and considerations do not signal the demise of dif-
ferential association theory, nor of the importance of peer relations inthe explanation of delinquency. Indeed, research continues to docu-
ment the importance of peer relationships as an explanation of delin-
quency, perhaps more so for drug use (Engels and ter Bogt, 2001; Garnier
and Stein, 2002; Maxwell, 2002). The trend in delinquency research is
to provide clarification of elements of existing theoretical explanations,as well as to develop models which attempt to combine or integrateseveral theories. In this regard, it would seem differential association
theory is very much alive.
Drift and Delinquency
Specific Assumptions Matza’s concept of drift shares many of the
assumptions found in the theory of differential association. A central
difference between the two theories, however, is that the notion ofdrift assumes delinquency to be based largely on the exercise of a
juvenile’s choices, depending on the situation or circumstances at a
particular moment. The importance of individual judgment on behaviorin this explanation differs from virtually all other theories of
delinquency, which stress the influence of deterministic forces,
individualistic or environmental, on the behavior of juveniles.
Another assumption of drift theory, which tends to separate it from
differential association, is that delinquents are angered over a sense ofinjustice they feel from discriminatory law enforcement practices andcommunity reactions to their misbehaviors. In other words, delinquents
are somewhat psychologically alienated from society.

interpersonal and situational explanations 197
key concepts
Drift The concept of drift asserts that delinquent behavior and law-
abiding behavior are both characteristics of delinquents. Thus, juve-
niles drift in and out of delinquency, depending on the situation and
their mood or feelings. They do not have a commitment to delinquency,even when deeply immersed in the behavior.
Neutralization A central factor in the decision to commit a delinquent
act is the juvenile’s ability to neutralize, or explain away, the moral rep-
rehension felt to be associated with the act. There are several types of
neutralization. Their existence may be encouraged by feelings of in-
justice, but the factor of neutralization is a key link between emotionalstates and delinquent behavior.
Discussion According to Matza, delinquency is best viewed as
occasional and associated with particular situations and circumstances.
In other words, juveniles do not commit acts of delinquency because
a group set of norms dictates that they do, but because the nature ofa particular time, place, and setting encourages the commission of
delinquent acts at that time. Group membership may promote a
delinquent response in certain situations, but it does not mandate suchbehavior.
Because of their status in Western societies, juveniles are lodged
in a transitional state between total dependence on adults and free-dom of thought and action. Opposition to adult rules is likely to de-
velop among juveniles and will sometimes be expressed in the form of
delinquency. The emergence of delinquent subcultures, however, withtotally oppositional values to conventional, adult values is not likely to
happen. Delinquent (oppositional) subcultures do not emerge because
adolescents are too closely supervised by, or otherwise connected with,adults for that to happen.
This view of delinquency is also characterized as drift, in which
delinquency is seen as the result of vacillation within a juvenile be-tween the conforming expectations of adults and the peer-dominated,
situational demands and opportunities that encourage delinquency. In
this view, delinquency is committed not because a juvenile is drivenby wicked internal or external forces, but because it seems more
profitable and correct to do so at the moment.

198 theories of delinquency
Juveniles are able to drift into and out of delinquency through a
number of rationalizations or neutralizations (Sykes and Matza, 1957 ;
Matza, 1964). These rationalizations and neutralizations, respectively,
provide excuses for having committed delinquency and justifications
for committing delinquency before the fact. Gresham Sykes and Matza(1957) concentrate on the justifications for delinquency and propose
five types of “techniques of neutralization”: ( 1)denial of responsibility ,
in which the juvenile fails to accept personal blame for his actions,attributing them instead to forces beyond his control, such as having
bad parents or living in poverty; (2 )denial of injury , in which the juve-
nile does not deny the act but maintains that no one was really physi-
cally hurt or economically harmed; ( 3)denial of a victim , in which the
harm of injury caused by the act is felt to be deserved because the“victim” deserved it, such as stealing from a “crooked” store owner;(4)condemnation of condemners , which involves a view of disapproving
others as hypocrites and hidden deviants, a view which sometimesbecomes cynical of authority figures, such as the police and schoolofficials; ( 5)appeal to higher loyalties , which argues that the immediate
demands of the group take precedence over familial, community, orsocietal values and rules, and that these group demands sometimescall for the commission of delinquent acts. Hamlin ( 1988) argues that
the value of “neutralization theory” lies in conceptualizing these tech-niques as rationalizations which are utilized afterdelinquent acts have
been committed.
While Sykes and Matza did not dwell on the factors that contrib-
ute to the techniques of neutralization, subsequent comments havetended to focus on the existence of a “subterranean” adult value sys-
tem which tacitly encourages the pursuit of thrills and irresponsibility
among juveniles (Matza and Sykes, 1961). This underground system of
values, as it were, also contributes to adolescent justifications for delin-
quency by allowing one to charge that “Everyone is doing it, so why
can’t I?”
The later work of Matza ( 1964) implicates the lack of family su-
pervision in the development of neutralization techniques, but moreemphatically suggests the role of peer-dominated social settings and theoperations of the juvenile justice system in the emergence of such jus-
tifications.

interpersonal and situational explanations 199
Peer-group situations are characterized by the concept of “situation
of company,” in which the delinquent is depicted as constantly exposed
to tests or “soundings” designed to challenge his masculinity and group
loyalty. Ironically, however, Matza contends that each member of the
group personally adopts conventional adult values but that public ex-pressions to the contrary lead to group shared misunderstandings of just
what others in the group actually feel.
To summarize, Matza’s theory of drift suggests that most delin-
quents are not alienated from adult, conventional values but, instead,that they are susceptible to both the conforming influences of adults
and the delinquent influences of peer pressure. Opportunities fordelinquency emerge out of situational contexts. These opportunities
can assume more importance for a juvenile when he has established a
set of justifications, or moral neutralizations, which temporarily sanc-tion delinquent behavior. The neutralization of conventional values,
in turn, is facilitated by several factors, including perceived discrimi-
natory enforcement of the law and perceived implicit adult accep-tance of many “delinquent” acts, which represent what conventional
adults often do or encourage rather than what they publicly proclaim
to be their values and attitudes.
Evaluation The theory of drift assumes that juveniles live in a state
of flux and uncertainty, and this notion is convincing (Goodman,
1962). Furthermore, some research has documented the general
acceptance of middle-class, conventional values among juvenile gang
members and their leaders (Short and Strodtbeck, 1965; Krisberg,1974). In addition, Cohen’s (1955) argument that a common trait in
juvenile gangs is short-run hedonism is consistent with Matza’s
conceptualization of drift (although on other particulars Cohen andMatza are at odds). Even though these characteristics apply to gang
delinquency, it is possible that they apply to other examples of
delinquency as well.
An implicit assumption of Matza’s drift theory is that delinquency
will decline as adolescents approach adulthood. This is a very involvedissue and it is definitely influenced by the effects of official interventionand treatment efforts on the part of society in an effort to “reform”
delinquents. Certainly gang members tend to disassociate from the gang

200 theories of delinquency
as adulthood approaches, and delinquency, gang or otherwise, does
decline with advanced age status, through marriage, employment, orperhaps general maturation (McCord et al., 1959; Briar and Piliavin, 1965;
Laub and Sampson, 1993). Edwin Schur ( 1973) advocates an approach
of “radical nonintervention” toward delinquents, an approach whichis in part based on Matza’s theory, including the implicit notion of natural
reformation.
Those who have attempted to study specifically the concepts of drift
and neutralization, however, have not consistently supported Matza’s as-sertions. In an investigation of rural and urban youth and institutionalized
delinquents, Michael Hindelang ( 1974) failed to find any support for Matza’s
contention that delinquents are basically disapproving of delinquency but
go along with it because they think their friends would approve. Those
who admitted involvement in delinquency were more likely to approvepersonally of such behavior than those not involved in delinquency, and
this finding remained constant for a variety of offense behaviors, for males
and females, rural and urban youngsters, and institutionalized youth as wellas juveniles in public schools (see also, Hindelang, 1970). Richard Ball ( 1983)
found that neutralization was less related to “basic norm violation” amongyoung adolescents than was their self-concept.
Peggy Giordano ( 1976) surveyed the attitudes of public school
students and juveniles who had been processed through various stagesof the juvenile justice system (police contact, court contact, institu-tionalization, and so on). She found no significant attitudinal differ-
ences between the students and the official delinquents. These
delinquents did not perceive their handling as unfair or unjust. Ifanything, they developed more positive feelings toward the juvenile
justice system as they experienced more contact with it. Such results
question the foundation on which Matza’s theory of drift and neu-tralization is based.
Landsheer et al. ( 1994), however, differentiated techniques of neu-
tralization according to the victim’s status and the nature of the of-fense. They applied these separations in a self-report study of
delinquency involving nearly 2700 youth and young adults, aged
12–25, in the Netherlands. Their results indicate that the respondents
could be classified into three categories: nondelinquency, low delin-quency, and high delinquency. The nondelinquents were uniform in

interpersonal and situational explanations 201
their lack of permissiveness for any act of criminality. Delinquents tended
to view crimes as permissible, or acceptable, in support of neutraliza-tion theory. However, for crimes causing personal injury and in which
the victim was “familiar” or known to the offender, all respondents,
including delinquents, indicated nonpermissiveness toward the offense.Thus, while this study provides general support for neutralization theory,
it fails to distinguish attitudes of delinquents and nondelinquents relative
to criminal acts causing personal injury to an associate of the offender.
Agnew ( 1994) sheds some light on this situation by demonstrating
that most adolescents disapprove of violence. Consequently, commit-ting acts of violence is enhanced through neutralization. Neutralization,in turn, is encouraged by associations with delinquent peers, a connec-
tion which would also lend support to differential association theory.
Agnew’s data source is a longitudinal survey (the National Youth Sur-vey), and the analysis indicates that neutralization precedes violent acts.
However, his analysis does not indicate whether association with peers
precedes using techniques of neutralization. Logically, one would ex-pect to find this causal pattern, but the published results do not clearly
point in this direction.
A difficulty with Matza’s theory lies in its focus on psychological
motivations and intentions regarding behavior, both before andafter
the act. In this respect, Matza’s theory of drift shares the same diffi-
culty as Sutherland’s theory of differential association—namely, theassessment of one’s priorstate of mind from a vantage point far removed
from the commission of an act.
Matza’s conceptualization of the delinquent adolescent portrays a
rather free-floating individual who is being buffeted about by diverse
influences. While this view may be somewhat appealing, it seems to
allow for too much individual freedom of choice without suggesting arationale for explaining the choices which are made.
The issue of choice is an important theoretical concept, but, as
was argued in Chapter 2, choice must be considered relative within
social contexts. Choice among contained populations, such as native
North Americans, may not be as free and relevant as among other
people, and this fact of life may have significant effects on the im-pact of drift on delinquency among native North American youth
(Ratner, 1995).

202 theories of delinquency
Some have suggested that drift theory is actually a type of social
control theory of delinquency (see Chapter 8), in which the delin-
quent is seen as relatively uncommitted or unattached to conventional
social institutions and peer groups (Briar and Piliavin, 1965; Schur, 1973).
In fact, this type of theoretical framework does seem to be beneficial
to a better understanding of delinquency if the two perspectives are
merged. For example, drift theory proposes that juveniles may be de-
linquent at any given time. It does not provide a systematic account,however, of why delinquency is defined as acceptable by a group or
an individual. Social control theory argues that delinquency occurs af-
ter disaffiliations develop between juveniles and representatives of so-cial institutions, such as parents and school authorities. Youngsters who
are thus unattached are more likely to be attracted to delinquency than
others. Those who “drift” into delinquency are those who are rela-tively more disenchanted with traditional institutions in society.
Summary
Differential association and drift as explanations of delinquency differ
from previously discussed explanations in that they are essentially social
psychological . That is, the primary cause of delinquency lies withthe in-
dividual, but not within him. While these theories maintain that indi-viduals commit delinquent acts, they also acknowledge the importanceof social factors in the decision to commit delinquency. Furthermore,
the influential individuals or groups typically are significant others (mean-
ingful people in one’s life, such as peer group members and authorityfigures).
In Sutherland’s theory of differential association, the influence of
significant others on a juvenile is in the direct encouragement of de-linquency. For Matza and his theory of drift, the influence of signifi-
cant others can be either an actual encouragement of delinquency or
an indirect contribution to delinquency through the development ofresentment of authority figures.
Both theories attempt to provide a link between the broad, ill-
defined effects of social class and social structure and the atomistic,overly deterministic conceptualizations of biological and psychological

interpersonal and situational explanations 203
theories of delinquency, such as psychoanalytic interpretations. In this
respect, they make a contribution to the explanation of delinquency.
A difficulty with both theories, however, lies with the measure-
ment and testing of basic concepts and propositions. Of the two theo-ries, differential association is presented in a more rigorous fashion, andit has been researched more thoroughly than has Matza’s drift theory.
Nonetheless, it seems as if both explanations are trying to explain too
much by attempting to account for the vagaries of human behaviorfrom an open and situational point of view.
Both differential association and drift appear to be well grounded in
their attempts to understand the more proximate causes of delinquency. Itwould appear, however, that these theories would be enhanced by being
attached to a more measurable and fixed social entity, as opposed to broadly
conceived societal factors. This type of foundation may perhaps best besupplied by control theories, particularly socialcontrol theories, of delin-
quency. These explanations are considered in the next chapter.
References
Adams, Reed, 1973, “Differential Association and Learning Principles Revis-
ited.” Social Problems 20:458–470.
Agnew, Robert, 1991, “The Interactive Effects of Peer Variables on Delin-
quency.” Criminology 29:47–72.
———, 1994, “The Techniques of Neutralization and Violence.” Criminol-
ogy32:555–580.
Albada-Lim, Estefania, 1969, Toward Understanding the Filipino Delinquent.
Quezon City, Philippines: Bustamante.
Aseltine, Robert H., Jr., 1995, “A Reconsideration of Parental and Peer Influ-
ences on Adolescent Behavior.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior
36:103–121.
Ball, Richard A., 1983, “Development of Basic Norm Violation: Neutraliza-
tion and Self-Concept within a Male Cohort.” Criminology 21:75–94.
Briar, Scott and Irving Piliavin, 1965, “Delinquency, Situational Inducements,
and Commitment to Conformity.” Social Problems 13:35–45.
Burgess, Robert L. and Ronald L. Akers, 1966, “A Differential Association-
Reinforcement Theory of Criminal Behavior.” Social Problems 14:128–147.
Cashwell, Craig S. and Nicholas A. Vacc, 1996 , “Family Functioning and
Risk Behaviors: Influences on Adolescent Delinquency.” The SchoolCounselor 44:105–114.

204 theories of delinquency
Cohen, Albert, 1955, Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang. New York:
Free Press.
Cressey, Donald R., 1952, “Application and Verification of the Differen-
tial Association Theory.” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and
Police Science 43:43–52.
DeFleur, Melvin and Richard Quinney, 1966, “A Reformulation of Sutherland’s
Differential Association Theory and a Strategy for Empirical Verification.”Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 2:1–22.
Dembo, Richard, Gary Grandon, Lawrence La Voie, James Schmeidler, and
William Burgos, 1986, “Parents and Drugs Revisited: Some Further Evi-
dence in Support of Social Learning Theory.” Criminology 24:85–104.
Dishion, Thomas J., David W. Andrews, and Lynn Crosby, 1995, “Antisocial
Boys and Their Friends in Early Adolescence: Relationship Characteris-tics, Quality, and Interactional Process.” Child Development 66:139–151.
Dishion, Thomas J., Kathleen M. Spracklen, David W. Andrews, and Gerald
R. Patterson, 1996, “Deviancy Training in Male Adolescent Friendships.”
Behavior Therapy 27:373–390.
Elliott, Delbert S., David Huizinga, and Suzanne A. Ageton, 1985, Explaining
Delinquency and Drug Use. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Engels, Rutger C. M. E. and Tom ter Bogt, 2001, “Influences of Risk Behav-
iors on the Quality of Peer Relations in Adolescence.” Journal of Youthand Adolescence 30:675–695.
Erickson, Kristan Glasgow, Robert Crosnoe, and Sanford M. Dornbusch, 2000,
“A Social Process Model of Adolescent Deviance: Combining Social Con-trol and Differential Association Perspectives.” Journal of Youth and Ado-lescence 4:395–425.
Gardner, Robert Le Grande, III, 1984, Social Bonding and Delinquency: A
Multivariate Analysis. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Virginia Polytech-nic Institute and State University: Blacksburg, Virginia.
Garnier, Helen E. and Judith A. Stein, 2002, “An 18-Year Model of Family
and Peer Effects on Adolescent Drug Use and Delinquency.” Journal ofYouth and Adolescence 31:45–56.
Giordano, Peggy C., 1976, “The Sense of Injustice? An Analysis of Juveniles’
Reactions to the Justice System.” Criminology 14:93–112.
Giordano, Peggy C., Stephen A. Cernkovich, and M. D. Pugh, 1986, “Friend-
ships and Delinquency.” American Journal of Sociology 91:1170–1202.
Glaser, Daniel, 1956, “Criminality Theories and Behavioral Images.” Ameri-
can Journal of Sociology 61:433–444.
Glueck, Sheldon, 1962, “Theory and Fact in Criminology: A Criticism of
Differential Association.” Pp. 91–95 in Marvin E. Wolfgang, Leonard Savitz,

interpersonal and situational explanations 205
and Norman Johnston (eds.), The Sociology of Crime and Delinquency.
New York: Wiley.
Goodman, Paul, 1962, Growing up Absurd. New York: Random House
(Vintage).
Hagan, John, 1991, “Destiny and Drift: Subcultural Preferences, Status
Attainments, and the Risks and Rewards of Youth.” American So-ciological Review 56:567–582.
Halbasch, Keith, 1979, “Differential Reinforcement Theory Examined.”
Criminology 17:217–229.
Hamlin, John E., 1988, “The Misplaced Role of Rational Choice in Neutral-
ization Theory.” Criminology 26:425–438.
Hartjen, Clayton A. and Sesha Kethineni, 1999, “Exploring the Etiology of Delin-
quency across Country and Gender.” Journal of Crime & Justice 22:55–90.
Hartjen, Clayton A. and S. Priyadarsini, 2003, “Gender, Peers, and Delin-
quency: A Study of Boys and Girls in Rural France.” Youth & Society34:387–414.
Haskell, Martin R., 1960, “Toward a Reference Group Theory of Juvenile
Delinquency.” Social Problems 8:220–230.
Haynie, Dana L., 2001, “Delinquent Peers Revisited: Does Network Struc-
ture Matter?” American Journal of Sociology 106:1013–1057.
Hepburn, John R., 1977, “Testing Alternative Models of Delinquency Cau-
sation.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 67:450–460.
Hindelang, Michael J., 1970, “The Commitment of Delinquents to Their
Misdeeds: Do Delinquents Drift?” Social Problems 17:502–509.
———, 1973, “Causes of Delinquency: A Partial Replication and Extension.”
Social Problems 20:471–487.
———, 1974, “Moral Evaluations of Illegal Behaviors.” Social Problems
21:370–385.
Hirschi, Travis, 1969, Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University of Cali-
fornia Press.
Jeffery, C. R., 1965, “Criminal Behavior and Learning Theory.” Journal of
Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 56:294–300.
Jensen, Gary F., 1972, “Parents, Peers, and Delinquent Action: A Test of the
Differential Association Perspective.” American Journal of Sociology78:562–575.
Jensen, Gary F. and Dean G. Rojek, 1992, Delinquency and Youth Crime,
second edition, Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland.
Johnson, Richard E., Anastasios C. Marcos, and Stephen J. Bahr, 1987,
“The Role of Peers in the Complex Etiology of Adolescent Drug Use.”Criminology 25:323–340.

206 theories of delinquency
Krisberg, Barry, 1974, “Gang Youth and Hustling: The Psychology of Sur-
vival.” Issues in Criminology 9:115–129.
Landsheer, J. A., H’t Hart, and W. Kox, 1994, “Delinquent Values and Victim
Damage: Exploring the Limits of Neutralization Theory.” British Journal
of Criminology 34:44–53.
Laub, John H. and Robert J. Sampson, 1993, “Turning Points in the Life Course:
Why Change Matters to the Study of Crime.” Criminology 31:301–325.
Liu, Ruth X., 2003, “The Moderating Effects of Internal and Perceived Exter-
nal Sanction Threats on the Relationship between Deviant Peer Associa-tions and Criminal Offending.” Western Criminology Review 4 (3)
[Online]. Available: http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v 4/n3/liu.html.
Marcos, Anastasios C., Stephen J. Bahr, and Richard E. Johnson, 1986, “Test of
a Bonding/Association Theory of Adolescent Drug Use.” Social Forces65:135–161.
Matsueda, Ross L., 1982, “Testing Control Theory and Differential Associa-
tion: A Causal Modeling Approach.” American Sociological Review47:489–504.
———, 1988, “The Current State of Differential Association Theory.” Crime
and Delinquency 34:277–306.
Matsueda, Ross L. and Karen Heimer, 1987, “Race, Family Structure, and
Delinquency.” American Sociological Review 52:826–840.
Matza, David, 1964, Delinquency and Drift. New York: Wiley.
Matza, David and Gresham M. Sykes, 1961, “Juvenile Delinquency and Sub-
terranean Values.” American Sociological Review 26:712–719.
Maxwell, Kimberly A., 2002, “Friends: The Role of Peer Influence across
Adolescent Risk Behaviors.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence31:267–277.
McCord, William, Joan McCord, and Irving K. Zola, 1959, Origins of Crime.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Meier, Robert F., Steven R. Burkett, and Carol A. Hickman, 1984, “Sanc-
tions, Peers, and Deviance: Preliminary Models of a Social Control Pro-cess.” The Sociological Quarterly 25:67–82.
Mulvey, Edward P. and John F. LaRosa, Jr., 1986, “Delinquency Cessation
and Adolescent Development: Preliminary Data.” American Journal ofOrthopsychiatry 56:212–224.
Orcutt, James D., 1987, “Differential Association and Marijuana Use: A
Closer Look at Sutherland (with a Little Help from Becker).” Criminol-ogy 25:341–358.
Pabon, Edward, Orlando Rodriquez, and Gerald Gurin, 1992, “Clarifying Peer
Relations and Delinquency.” Youth & Society 24:149–165.

interpersonal and situational explanations 207
Paternoster, Raymond and Ruth Triplett, 1988, “Disaggregating Self-
Reported Delinquency and Its Implications for Theory.” Criminology
26:591–620.
Radzinowicz, Leon, 1966, Ideology and Crime. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Ratner, R. S., 1995, “Drift, Delinquency, and Destiny.” Pp. 332–341 in James
H. Creechan and Robert A. Silverman (eds.), Canadian Delinquency.Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice-Hall Canada.
Reinarman, Craig and Jeffrey Fagan, 1988, “Social Organization and Differ-
ential Association: A Research Note from a Longitudinal Study of ViolentJuvenile Offenders.” Crime and Delinquency 34:307–327.
Reiss, Albert J., Jr. and A. Lewis Rhodes, 1964, “An Empirical Test of Differ-
ential Association Theory.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency1:5–18.
Sagarin, Edward, 1975, Deviants and Deviance. New York: Praeger.
Sarnecki, Jerzy, 1986, Delinquent Networks. Stockholm, Sweden: The
National Council for Crime Prevention, Sweden.
Schuessler, Karl (ed.), 1973a, Edwin H. Sutherland on Analyzing Crime.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
———, 1973b, “Introduction.” Pp. ix–xxxvi in Karl Schuessler (ed.), q.v.
Schur, Edwin M., 1973, Radical Non-Intervention. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall (Spectrum).
Shoemaker, Donald J., 1992 , “Delinquency in the Philippines: A Description.”
Philippine Sociological Review 40:83–103.
———, 1994, “Male-Female Delinquency in the Philippines: A Comparative
Analysis.” Youth & Society 25:299–329.
Short, James F., Jr., 1957, “Differential Association and Delinquency.” Social
Problems 4:233–239.
———, 1960, “Differential Association as a Hypothesis: Problems of Empiri-
cal Testing.” Social Problems 8:14–25.
Short, James F., Jr. and Fred L. Strodtbeck, 1965, Group Process and Gang
Delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Stanfield, Robert E., 1966, “The Interaction of Family Variables and Gang
Variables in the Aetiology of Delinquency.” Social Problems 13:411–417.
Sutherland, Edwin H., 1939, Principles of Criminology, third edition. Phila-
delphia: Lippincott.
———, 1973, “Development of the Theory.” Pp. 13–29 in Karl Schuessler
(ed.), q.v.
Sutherland, Edwin H. and Donald R. Cressey, 1978, Criminology, tenth edi-
tion. New York: Lippincott.

208 theories of delinquency
Sykes, Gresham M. and David Matza, 1957, “Techniques of Neutraliza-
tion: A Theory of Delinquency.” The American Journal of Sociology
22:664–670.
Thompson, William E., Jim Mitchell, and Richard A. Dodder, 1984, “An
Empirical Test of Hirschi’s Control Theory of Delinquency.” DeviantBehavior 5:11–22.
Voss, Harwin L., 1964, “Differential Association and Reported Delinquent
Behavior: A Replication.” Social Problems 12:78–85.
Warr, Mark, 1993, “Age, Peers, and Delinquency.” Criminology 31:17–40.
———, 2002, Companions in Crime: The Social Aspects of Criminal Con-
duct. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weis, Joseph G., 1980 , Jurisdiction and the Elusive Status Offender. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

8
Control Theories
209Historical Overview
Control theories of delinquency cover a wide range of topics. Lamar
Empey ( 1982) characterizes nineteenth-century and early-twentieth-
century individualistic theories of delinquency as “control” theories,especially psychoanalytic explanations. Travis Hirschi ( 1969) traces the
ideas of control theory as far back as Durkheim in the nineteenth cen-
tury. The core ideas of control theories, there fore, have a rather long
history. Most often, however, control theories of delinquency are
equated with self-concept research and social control mechanisms, suchas family and school experiences. In this context, control theories may
be historically placed in the 1950s and early 1960s, with the develop-
ment of Walter Reckless’ self-concept or containment explanation of
delinquency. In the late 1960s Travis Hirschi extended Reckless’ ideas
to broader social contexts, thus leading to the social or psychosocial
perspective, which became synonymous with control theory (see also,
Toby, 1957).
The idea that juveniles commit delinquency because some con-
trolling force is absent or defective has been generally supported forsome time. The focusof attention on social or social-psychological con-
trol factors, however, is relatively new. Although family factors were
prominent in late-nineteenth and early-twentieth-century explanations
of delinquency (Sanders, 1970; Krisberg and Austin, 1978), they were

210 theories of delinquency
either not carefully researched or were of secondary importance to the
psychoanalytic interpretation of delinquency as an individual problem.
Among sociological perspectives, interest in family factors gave way
to broader social and economic conditions in the 1940s and 1950s and
all but disappeared from the literature (Wilkinson, 1974). Current in-
terest in family variables, as well as other institutional factors, such as
religious and school influences, is often couched in terms of the con-
trol perspective.
For the most part, therefore, control theories of delinquency rep-
resent a relatively modern development. This statement is most par-ticularly appropriate for social control factors, the subject of considerableresearch and discussion since the early 1970s.
Generic Assumptions
Control theories all assume one basic point. Human beings, young or
old, must be held in check, or somehow controlled, if criminal or de-
linquent tendencies are to be repressed.
A related assumption of control theories is that delinquency is to
be expected, considering all of the pressures and inducements towarddelinquency to which most juveniles are exposed. To control theo-
ries, the explanation of delinquency is based not on the question of“Why did he do it?” but, instead, “Why did he notdo it?” In other
words, control theories assume that the tendency to commit delinquentacts is well-nigh universal. Since delinquent behavior is to be expected,the crucial explanation of it is to be found in searching for missing fac-
tors in delinquents that separate them from nondelinquents.
The first two assumptions logically point to a third generic as-
sumption; namely, delinquency is the result of a deficiency in some-
thing, the absence of a working control mechanism. Delinquents are
seen neither as driven nor as perfectly “normal.” They are simply seenas youth who are relatively uncontrolled or unattached, psychologi-
cally or socially.
The specific type of control factor or system deemed absent
or faulty among delinquents is what distinguishes various types ofcontrol theories. In the main, there are two general types of con-

control theories 211
trol systems, personal and social. Personal control systems involve
individualistic factors, especially psychological ones. They are best
exemplified by psychoanalytic concepts and the notion of self-
concept or esteem. Social control variables involve attachments tobasic social institutions, such as families, schools, and religious prac-tices. Attachments are often measured in a variety of ways but
typically are conceptualized as emotional (such as the amount of
affection between parent and child) and behavioral (such as gradesin school).
A fourth assumption of control theories is that there is general so-
cietal consensus concerning conventional beliefs and norms, especiallyas these are associated with various institutions in society.
The assumptions of control theories lead to the diagrammatic ex-
planation of delinquency shown in Figure 11.
From Figure 11, one could state that the weakened personal or so-
cial control factors contribute to delinquency through socialization (ba-sically childhood) experiences and current social situations. The defectivecontrol systems affect the learning of social norms and the implementa-
tion of norms in terms of appropriate behavior. It is also possible, of course,
that weakened personal and social controls may be interconnected.Lowered self-concepts and antisocial attitudes may stem from negative
family and school experiences, and vice versa. This possibility, however,
is not a necessary component of control theory.Figure 11

212 theories of delinquency
Personal Controls
Psychoanalysis Revisited Psychoanalysis can readily be viewed as
a control perspective. The emphasis on early childhood socialization
experiences, especially within the family, and the focus on the superego,holding sway over instinctive id impulses, are consistent with the
control conceptualization of delinquency.
Psychoanalysis, however, offers problems to some who would cat-
egorize it as a control theory. To some extent, this concern is a reflec-tion of the individualistic nature of the psychoanalytic approach.
Nonetheless, the assumptions of psychoanalytic theory fall within thegeneral assumptions of control theories.
Containment Theory Other than psychoanalysis, the “containment”
perspective, developed by Walter Reckless, has probably attracted the
greatest attention as a personal control theory of delinquency. Properly
classified as a social-psychological explanation of delinquency, similar toSutherland’s differential association, contain ment is linked to the idea
of self-concept.
l Unlike differential association, however, containment
theory stresses the importance of the personalized feelings of youthrather than their associations.
Specific Assumptions Containment theory is based on the
assumption that delinquency is a result of poor self-concepts. This view
is in contrast with that of the labeling perspective, which argues that
negative self-concepts are the result of having been labeled delinquent.
Besides the view that negative self-images contribute to delin-
quency, containment theory is based on the assumption that a boy’spositive view of himself provides an insulation against the pressuresand the pulls toward delinquency, regardless of social class or other
environmental conditions.
Third, containment theory is based on a multifaceted image of
behavior. That is, people are conceptualized as being composed ofseveral layers of drives, pressures, pulls, and insulators or buffers. All
of these forces affect the individual simultaneously, and they come fromboth within and outside of the person. The most important of these
forces, however, is the internal insulator, the self-concept.

control theories 213
key concepts
Containment The principal concept of this explanation is that drives
and pulls (forces in general) toward delinquency must somehow be
contained—that is, checked or controlled—if delinquency is to be
averted.Self-concept This concept usually refers to an image, whether of one’s
place in society or of one’s value to others or to society in general.The most typical way of measuring self-concept is through the use ofattitude and personality scales, including subjective and limited-response
scale items.
Discussion Although Reckless began to investigate the relationship
between self-concept and delinquency in the mid-195 0s (Reckless
et al., 1956), the theory of containment was not published in systematic
form until the early 1960s. According to Reckless, containment theory
is essentially a theory of the middle range. By this, Reckless means that
it is designed to explain those forms of delinquent and criminal behavior
that fall outside the highly personalized acts resulting from organic and
personality disorders, such as brain damage, on the one hand, and
organized criminality, such as organized crime and delinquent gangs,on the other hand. According to Reckless, these behaviors constitute
from one-fourth to one-third of the acts of crime and delinquency.
The rest, the bulk of criminal and delinquent activity, he terms the“middle range of norm violation,” the range to which containment
theory applies (Reckless, 1961).
During the 1960s, the theory became couched in terms of pressures,
pulls, pushes, and containments or buffers, all focused on the individual.Reckless identified four types of pressures and containments: ( 1) outer,
or social, pressures and pulls; ( 2) external containments; ( 3) inner con-
tainments; and ( 4) inner pushes, that is, organic or psychological forces
(Reckless, 1967). These four factors are conceptualized by Reckless as
circles, or layers, emanating from the self. Thus, the self serves as a con-
tainer of internal pushes, while prosocial contacts serve as buffers against
external pressures and containers against external pulls.
External pressures include “adverse living conditions” such as pov-
erty, unemployment, minority group status, and discrimination. Outerpulls consist of bad companions, deviant prestige figures, juvenile gangs

214 theories of delinquency
(subcultures), and mass media inducements. Internal pushes include a
veritable host of faults and problems, such as tensions and frustrations,aggressiveness, need for immediate gratification, rebelliousness, feelings
of inadequacy, compulsions, phobias, brain damage, and psychoses.
With all of these pushes and pulls operating on juveniles, it is a
wonder that they do not all become delinquent and remain that way.Society, however, offers various external or outer constraints on law-
breaking behavior. The most im portant of these outer containments,
according to Reckless, are “nuclear groups,” such as the family and
community, whose influences people experience in varying degrees.Two other aspects of external containment are the structure of rolesand expectations in society and the sense of acceptance and belonging
relative to a group or society.
The inner restraint on delinquent behavior is associated with the
self-concept. The theory maintains that a low or negative self-conceptcontributes to delinquency. Reckless also mentions three other types of
inner containment: goal orientation, frustration tolerance, and norm com-mitment and retention. Orientation to long-range, socially approved goals,
high frustration tolerance, and high levels of norm commitment and
tolerance are all thought to inhibit delinquency.
Of the two general types of containment, inner and outer, Reck-
less clearly feels that inner containment is more important for the con-trol of delinquency, at least in industrialized societies. In less developedsocieties, external pressures toward crime and deviance are not very
great. In addition, Reckless reasons that “undisturbed and developing”
countries are tightly structured, particularly by religious restraints, andthe individualized component of the self is rarely developed.
In summary, containment theory proposes that delinquency can
be produced by a variety of forces and factors, both internal and ex-ternal. That such behavior does notoccur is attributable to insulations
or buffers, both social and personal. Of these two types of contain-ment, the most important in inhibiting delinquency is inner contain-ment, especially self-concept.
Evaluation Reckless felt that containment theory offered a better
explanation of delinquency than other theories for the following reasons:
(1) it can be applied to particular individuals; ( 2) the various external

control theories 215
and internal constraints can be observed and measured, both qualitatively
and quantitatively; ( 3) the theory explains both delinquency and
conformity; ( 4) it likewise explains a wide variety of criminal or
delinquent activity; and ( 5) it is a possible basis for the treatment and
prevention of delinquency (Reckless, 1967).
The connection between negative self-concepts and delinquency
has been fairly uniformly established through empirical research. Recklessand his associates, for example, have presented evidence from studiesof juveniles in Columbus, Ohio, which demonstrates that predicted
delinquents (“bad” boys) have lower self-concepts than predicted
nondelinquents (“good” boys), as measured by official records (Recklesset al., 1956; Reckless et al., 1957). Furthermore, “good” boys not only
remain freer of official contacts with police and courts than do “bad”boys, but they consistently evidence more positive levels of self-concept, from the age of 12–13 well into adolescence (Scarpitti et al.,
1960; Dinitz et al., 1962).
The data reported by Reckless and his students were character-
ized by the following conditions: ( 1) the “good” and “bad” boys were
initially selected by teachers’ predictions, and ( 2) the measures of the
boys’ self-concepts were cross-validated by their teachers and moth-ers. Although these conditions can be defended, taken together they
call into question the validity of self-concept or containment as an
explanation of delinquency. Some have argued, for example, that cross-validation of personally expressed self-concept with teachers’ and
mothers’ judgments confuses the issue between what a person actually
thinks of himself and what he thinks others think or expect of him(Schwartz and Tangri, 1965; Orcutt, 1970).
Michael Schwartz and Sandra Tangri ( 1965) examined the issue of
self-concept by utilizing a semantic differential test, whereby juvenileswere asked to rate themselves on a “good-bad” continuum along sev-
eral dimensions. These perceptions were then correlated with judg-
ments of how respondents felt mothers, friends, and teachers thoughtof them. The research was conducted on 101 school-nominated “good”
and “bad” sixth-grade boys in an all-black school in a high delinquency
area of Detroit. The results lent some support to containment theory inthat those designated as “good” boys had higher personal self-concepts
than those felt to be “bad” boys. Comparisons of self-concept with

216 theories of delinquency
perceptions of opinions of others, however, indicated that self-image
was correlated with different significant others (meaningful peoplein one’s life) and these significant others tended to vary between
“good” and “bad” boys. The self-concepts of “good” boys, for in-
stance, were influenced by perceived teachers’ images, while “bad”boys’ self-images were strongly associated with perceived mothers’
judgments (see also, Schwartz and Stryker, 1970).
Besides the issue of self-concept, some have questioned the valid-
ity of identifications of delinquency by teachers and principals (Orcutt,1970). A critical question is the accuracy of the predictions. The origi-
nal reports of the Columbus students indicated substantial agreement
between group predictions and sub sequent official contact with the police
or the courts (Scarpitti et al., 1960; Dinitz et al., 1962). Additional inves-
tigations, however, question the accuracy of such predictions. In a longi-tudinal study of delinquency prevention, for example, Reckless and Simon
Dinitz ( 1972) found that of more than 1000 predicted de linquents (bad
boys) over 40 percent had had no police contact within four years. If
nominations or predictions of future delinquency are to be used as a pri-
mary measure of delinquency, there must be consistent and substantial
agreement between the prediction and the subsequent behavior for theprocedure to be acceptable.
In addition to conceptual and methodological concerns involving
attempts to test containment theory, some investigators have raised theissue of relative importance. It is generally conceded in these studies
that self-concept measures can distinguish between delinquents and
nondelinquents, but that other factors may be more important in theexplanation of delinquency. These findings have tended to occur, fur-
thermore, when self-report measures of delinquency have been em-
ployed. Several studies (for example, Voss, 1969; Jensen, 1973; and
Rankin, 1977) present data that suggest that inner containment may be
less powerful as an explanation of delinquency than other factors, suchas peer group associations (differential association), family relationships,and social class. At the same time, these investigations suggest that self-
concept measures be combined with other variables to improve the
explanation of delinquency.
An emerging proposition is that self-concept is indirectly related
to delinquency. This view argues that a negative self-concept, as

control theories 217
indicated by self-rejection, along with experiences of failure at home
or school and/or in the community, create a disposition or tendency
toward delinquency. This “disposition to deviance,” in turn, directly
contributes to subsequent involvement in delinquent activity (Kaplan
et al., 1986. See also, van Welzenis, 1997). Furthermore, it is main-
tained that delinquent action, or perhaps participating in groups which
commit delinquent behavior, increases self-esteem (Kaplan, 1978. See also,
Rosenberg et al., 1989).
The ideas of Kaplan and associates are based on analyses of self-
report data gathered from junior high students over a three-year pe-
riod in the early 1970s. Other longitudinal data analyses, utilizing
samples of older youth, refute the influence of self-concept as an
explanation of delinquency (Wells and Rankin, 1983; McCarthy and
Hoge, 1984). However, there is some support for an increase in self-
esteem subsequent to committing delinquent acts among those withlow self-esteem scores (Kaplan, 1980; McCarthy and Hoge, 1984).
Also, Wells and Rankin report a decrease in self-esteem among
African-American delinquents, but this effect was not observed byMcCarthy and Hoge. Furthermore, a study of 20 black and 20 white
delinquents in England noted a higher level of self-acceptance
among blacks than among whites, but this study was not longitudi-
nal (Emms et al., 1986).
Some research suggests that while delinquency does not enhance
self-esteem, associating with delinquent peers enhances self-esteemmore than does committing delinquent acts (Jang and Thornberry, 1998).
Continued research on Kaplan’s ideas suggests that enhancement of
self-esteem subsequent to delinquency occurs more for boys who had
initial low levels of self-esteem, compared to youth who had high lev-
els of self-esteem prior to committing delinquent acts (Mason, 2001).
Part of the inconsistency in this research may be the result of
differing interpretations of self-concept. Ross ( 1992), for example,
suggests that most of the research on self-esteem (which somedifferentiate from self-concept) and delinquency ignores a group
referent to the concept, particularly as applied to race (pp. 619–620).
For some, identification of self with a racial group may actually
enhance self-esteem. Consequently, the relationship between
self-esteem and behavior may not always follow predicted patterns.

218 theories of delinquency
For example, Ross ( 1994b) argues that personal identity must be
differentiated from group identity, primarily race identity, as a measure
of self-esteem. Personal identity refers to such characteristics as aca-
demic achievement, sociability, feelings of hopelessness, and confidence
in becoming successful. In Ross’ study, African-Americans had higher
total levels of self-esteem than did whites. In addition, personal iden-
tityand self-esteem attached to race were inversely associated with
delinquency among African-Americans. Among whites, however, race
esteem was moderately associated with delinquency while only one
measure of personal identity, feeling that things are hopeless, was re-
lated to delinquency (p. 122).
However, Wells ( 1989) reports a strong and consistently positive
association between “self-enhancement” and self-reported delinquencyamong a national, longitudinal sample of white youth (the Youth-in-
Transition survey). Wells’ conclusions also suggest that delinquency “en-
hances” self-concept primarily among juveniles who have the lowest
levels of self-esteem, to the point of being “pathological,” as well asfor those youth who have the highest levels of self-esteem (p. 249).
The conjecture Wells offers for this seeming paradox is that delinquencycan increase self-esteem among juveniles who have “less to lose” byengaging in delinquency, particularly for those with extremely low levels
of self feelings (pp. 249–250).
Another possible reason for inconsistent research results on this
topic is the varied meanings of self-concept (Rosenberg, 1979; Ross,
1992). In a study of self-concept and self-reported delinquency among
Chinese youth in Hong Kong, for example, Leung and Lau ( 1989)
report a positive association between delinquency and self-concept,when self-concept is conceptualized relative to social and physical
abilities. However, when self-concept is measured relative to schoolabilities, there is an inverse relationship with delinquency. It should
also be remembered that self-esteem, as measured in almost all stud-
ies, is not a static concept, but rather changes, increasing and decreasingrelative to life’s experiences, especially over the period of adolescence,
and these changes can be different for males and females (Baldwin
and Hoffman, 2002).
Many who use the idea of a social self in connection with crimi-
nality refer to a negative or positive conception of oneself, and often

control theories 219
use the phrase self-esteem to convey the same notion. However, la-
beling theory suggests that it is not just self-esteem which is important,but also self-identification, the conceptualization of oneself as a delin-
quent, criminal, deviant, or whatever. Self-identity as a delinquent could
be interpreted positively. Thus, a higher self-esteem might result not
from having committed delinquent activity, but from identifying one-
self as a delinquent. The topic of criminal or delinquent identification
is partially addressed in Chapter 9, which concerns labeling theory. This
theory focuses on the consequences of being officially labeled a crimi-
nal or delinquent, including the effects on a person’s self-concept or
self-identity.
In summary, it cannot be denied that self-concept has an ef-
fect on behavior, delinquent or nondelinquent, deviant ornondeviant (Wells, 1978). Changes in self-concept can lead, directly
or indirectly, to changes in behavior.
2 While various conceptual and
methodological problems have characterized containment theory andattempts to test it, the theory has generally been supported withempirical investigation. Self-concept, however, appears to be less
important as an explanation of delinquency than other factors, par-
ticularly when unofficial measures of delinquency are used. Onesuch influence, peer group associations, has already been discussed.
Another set of conditions, social control or bond variables, is con-
sidered next.
Social Controls—the Social Bond
Specific Assumption The difference between personal and social
control theories of delinquency lies in the assumption of social control
theory that social bonds and attachments are a stronger protectionagainst delinquency than are personality characteristics.
key concept
Social Bond Essentially, this concept refers to the connection between
the individual and the society, usually through social institutions. TravisHirschi ( 1969) conceptualizes the social bond as consisting of four parts:
attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief.

220 theories of delinquency
Discussion According to Hirschi, the four elements of the social bond
collectively explain the social control theory of delinquency. Attachment refers
to the psychological and emotional connection one feels toward other persons
or groups and the extent to which one cares about their opinions and feelings.
According to Hirschi, attachment is the social counterpart to thepsychoanalytic concept of superego or conscience.
Commitment is the result of a cost-benefit approach to delinquency.
It refers to the investments accumulated in terms of conformity to con-ventional rules (such as time, money, effort, and status) versus the esti-
mated costs, or losses, of investments associated with nonconformity.
Commitment, therefore, is viewed as a rational aspect of the social bond,the social counterpart to the psychoanalytic concept of the ego.
Involvement refers to participation in conventional and legitimate
activity. In a school, for example, it would include extracurricular ac-tivities such as school plays, clubs, organizations, and athletic events.
Belief involves the acceptance of a conventional value system. In
the logic of control theory, it is argued that a weakening of conven-tional beliefs, for whatever reason, increases the chances of delinquency.
Although Hirschi recognizes several possibilities of the
interconnectedness of these four elements of the social bond, he sug-gests that they generally vary together. It is possible, for example, for
attachment and commitment to vary inversely. In other words, attach-
ment to parents and peers may prevent a juvenile from developingcommitments to school and legitimate occupational pursuits, particu-
larly if he is from a lower- or working-class environment. Hirschi con-
tends, however, that attachment and commitment are positively
associated, regardless of social class position. Moreover, he maintains
that commitment, involvement, attachment, and belief are also posi-
tively associated with one another. No component is theoretically moreimportant than another, although research may suggest the ascendancy
of one over another under specified conditions (Wiatrowski et al., 1981).
Some research, for example, shows that attachment and involvement
can both prevent delinquency and encourage more pro-social behav-
ior, such as doing well in school, and this is true for both males and
females. However, attachment may be more effective in controllingdeviance among females, compared to males, while involvement may
be equally effective for males and females (Huebner and Betts, 2002).

control theories 221
Evaluation The evaluation of social control theory will be
conducted according to the relationship between delinquency and three
institutional settings: religion, the family, and the school. The focus
will be on the extent to which bonds (in a general sense) to these
institutions are associated with delinquency.
Religion and Delinquency For some time, criminologists have been
interested in the connection between religious participation and be-liefs and criminality. Since the 1930s, research has been conducted on
the relationship between religious variables and delinquency. Earlier
studies, which focused on officially defined delinquents, tended to yield
conflicting results. Some studies found delinquents to be more involvedwith religion than nondelinquents; others found delinquents to be less
active in religious behavior than nondelinquents; and still another group
of results found no relationship between religious variables and delin-quency (Jensen and Rojek, 1992).
Despite the inconsistencies of systematic research on the subject,
popular opinion has held that there exists an inverse relationship be-tween religion and delinquency; that is, delinquents are less religiously
active than nondelinquents.
The view that delinquency and “religiosity” are inversely related
did have some support in the literature. One of these studies was thepreviously discussed comparative analysis of 500 delinquents and 500
nondelinquents (Glueck and Glueck, 1950). The Gluecks noted that
less than 40 percent of the delinquents attended church regularly, as
compared with over 67 percent of nondelinquents. At the same time,
neither delinquents nor nondelinquents were markedly negligent of
their “church duties,” that is, not attending church at all. The Gluecks,though, paid scant attention to the relationship between church at-
tendance and delinquency, presumably because their findings did notclash with general expectations.
A few years after the Glueck study, F. Ivan Nye reported an in-
tensive investigation of the relationship between family factors and self-reported delinquency ( 1958). Part of that investigation included the
relationship between other variables and delinquency, including churchattendance. Basically, Nye found that nondelinquents, and their par-ents, attended church significantly more often than delinquents. Simi-
lar to the Gluecks, however, Nye found that the biggest separation

222 theories of delinquency
between delinquents and nondelinquents occurred at the regular at-
tendance point. The differences between delinquents andnondelinquents, while apparent, were not as large among those who
never or only occasionally attended church as among those who at-
tended church regularly. The socialization value of church attendancewas questioned in the Nye study because he could find no association
between delinquency and length of church attendance.
The Nye study also found religion to be connected with delin-
quency through family relationships. Nondelinquents, for example,tended to discuss religious issues with their parents. The importance
of these relationships lies more in their description of the connectionbetween family factors and delinquency than of the connection be-
tween religion and delinquency.
The investigation of religious factors and delinquency lay virtu-
ally dormant until the late 1960s when a study called “Hellfire and
Delinquency” was published (Hirschi and Stark, 1969). Using both a
self-report delinquency scale with over 4000 junior and senior high
school students in California and police records, Travis Hirschi andRodney Stark measured the association between delinquency and
church attendance, acceptance of moral values, respect for lawand the police, and belief in the existence of a supernatural power
and sanctions in life after death. Their results were as follows: ( 1) there
was little or no association between church attendance and either an
acceptance of moral values or respect for law and the police; ( 2) there
was a strong, positive association between church attendance andbelief in supernatural sanctions; (3 ) there were strong inverse associa-
tions between both self-report and official delinquency and accep-
tance of moral values and respect for law and the police; ( 4) there
was no association between either measure of delinquency and be-
lief in supernatural sanctions; and ( 5) there was no relationship be-
tween either type of delinquency and church attendance. Theseresults led Hirschi and Stark to conclude that religion and churchattendance had no effect on delinquency, particularly in the face of
worldly influences.
The report by Hirschi and Stark left several issues unresolved. For
example, is religion unrelated to delinquency in all locations, for allfaiths and denominations, and for all types of delinquency? These and

control theories 223
other issues were addressed by a plethora of investigations in the 1970s,
many of which were attempted replications or extensions of the Hirschi
and Stark research. For the most part, these studies tended to reveal
some association between religion and delinquency, but the associa-
tion depended on various situations.
In one extension of Hirschi and Stark’s research, Steven Burkett and
Mervin White ( 1974) investigated the relationship between self-reported
delinquency and religion among a sample of 750 high school students in
the Pacific Northwest. Although the same measures of religion were used
as in the Hirschi and Stark study, the measure of delinquency was extended
to include alcohol (beer) and marijuana offenses (no official records ofdelinquency were used). In virtually all particulars, the results of the study
were consistent with those of Hirschi and Stark. When the offenses of
alcohol and marijuana use were considered, however, Burkett and Whitefound strong inverse relationships with church attendance, moral values,
and respect for “worldly authority”—that is, those who exhibited such
behavior and attitudes were relatively less involved with drug use.
Burkett and White concluded from their study that religious par-
ticipation does seem to deter some delinquency, especially those acts forwhich there is no consistent condemnation in the secular society. Inter-estingly, they further concluded that rather than religion being one of
theleasteffective institutions for controlling delinquency, it may be one
of the most effective, since its influence tends to be greater for those
offenses for which secular controls have weakened.
In a partial replication of the Hirschi and Stark study, Paul Higgins
and Gary Albrecht ( 1977) examined the relationship between church
attendance and self-reported delinquency among 1400 high school
students in Atlanta. They concluded that, contrary to Hirschi and Stark,
delinquency was inversely related to church attendance. This relation-ship, furthermore, was influenced by the variable of respect for the
juvenile court system (except for nonwhite females). That is, the greater
the church attendance, the more respect for the juvenile court, andthe less delinquency. Higgins and Albrecht speculated that their find-
ings might have reflected the inclusion of more serious offenses than
Hirschi and Stark had investigated, but discounted this explanation infavor of a geographical one. In other words, they ultimately concluded
that religion has more of an influence on behavior in areas where religion

224 theories of delinquency
occupies a more central place in the lives of people, such as in the
South. This view is also shared by Stark et al. ( 1982), who conclude
that in “secular communities” no connection exists between religion,
or church attendance, and delinquency. However, a different con-
clusion is reached by Tittle and Welch ( 1983), who argue that reli-
gious factors exert a negative influence on “deviance” when competing
secular controls are weak. Thus, in areas where most people are non-
religious (Stark et al.’s “secu lar communities”), the negative impact of
religion on delinquency is greatest.
Furthermore, some research suggests that the impact of religion
on adolescent drug use is not direct, but operates indirectly throughpeer associations (Burkett and Warren, 1987). That is, youth who have
little religious commitment are more apt to select as friends otherswho are likely to use marijuana. These friendships, in turn, are di-rectly related to marijuana use among youth with low religious con-
viction (see also, Ross, 1994a). Other research, using longitudinal data,
however, casts doubt on this indirect connection hypothesis. This
research concludes that religion, including church attendance and re-
ligious attitudes, has a direct and negative effect on delinquency,
independent of con trolling or intervening factors, such as social bond
and peer relationship variables (Johnson et al., 2001). Additional re-
search concludes that church attendance among young African-
Americans living in high delinquency and deviancy areas of inner
cities can “insulate” these youth from involvement in criminal and
delinquent behavior, including drug offenses, and that this con nec-
tion is direct (Johnson et al., 2000).
Other research has indicated some relationship between religion
and delinquency, usually drug use and status offenses (Linden and Currie,
1977, Jensen and Rojek, 1992). Some would contend, then, that the
conclusion of Hirschi and Stark was based on incomplete evidence.
There doesseem to be some connection between religious factors and
delinquency, particularly drug and status offenses, and particularly in
the South. Furthermore, to some extent, the lack of connection be-
tween delinquency and religion may be a result of insensitive statistical
measures. When different procedures are used, such as assessing theodds or relative probabilities of church attendance versus delinquency,
a strong connection between the two exists (Sloane and Potvin, 1986).

control theories 225
However, research continues to find significant, although statistically
modest, inverse connections between religious variables and delin-quency, particularly alcohol and marijuana use (Cochran and Akers,
1989; Free, 1994; Evans et al., 1996), although some find no such corre-
lations between religiosity and antiascetic offenses, that is, status or drug
offenses (Benda, 1995).
A developing series of analyses concerning the relationship be-
tween delinquency and deviance and religiosity, that is, church atten-
dance and attitudes regarding church, is being produced by a
longitudinal study involving over 3 ,000 high school seniors, conducted
at the University of North Carolina. Initial analyses regarding this survey’s
data on youth, religion, and delinquency, indicate that those students
who attend church and maintain religion and the church as an impor-
tant aspect of their lives (“religious 12th graders”) tend to report sig-
nificantly less involvement in alcohol, cigarette, and other drug use, as
well as less involvement in risky behaviors, and minor forms of delin-
quency. In addition, “religious” seniors tend to have better relation-ships with their parents and their communities, compared to other,
“nonreligious,” youth (Smith and Faris, 2003). Continuing analyses and
reports of this project should provide informative data on the general
question of the relationship between religion and delinquency among
young people (see Smith and Denton, especially pp. 218–240).
To make matters more interesting, Lee Ellis ( 1987) asserts that clear
and consistent inverse relationships between delinquency and churchattendance and belief in an afterlife have been noted in the literature.
These associations are particularly strong with respect to drug use andless predatory criminal acts. A possible reason for these connections,
Ellis maintains, is the existence of a “suboptimal arousal” state in of-
fenders (see Chapter 3). This condition renders delinquents, especially
psychopaths, bored with traditional religious ceremonies and attracted
to the more stimulating prospects associated with committing unlaw-
ful acts, particularly those associated with drug use. In a study of self-reported delinquency among high school students, Cochran et al. ( 1994)
find support for this “arousal” theory, except for tobacco and alcoholuse. However, their extended analysis suggests that social control fac-tors offer a stronger explanation for delinquency, including drug use,
than does the arousal theory (p. 113), although estimates of arousal in

226 theories of delinquency
this study are based on nonbiological measures. Overall, these authors
are supportive of arousal theory not only in connection with religionand delinquency but also as an explanation of delinquency, particu-
larly more serious acts of criminality (pp. 114–115).
In addition, it should be noted that religion (church attendance,
church membership) may have various inhibiting effects on behaviorsother than delinquency. William Bainbridge ( 1989), for example, notes
that church attendance is negatively associated with serious crime rates,
but is relatively unconnected with suicide rates and participation in
homosexual organizations.
The relationship between delinquency and particular religious faiths
is also an issue. Many of the earlier investigations either did not specifya particular faith or considered only Christian faiths as a single category.
Some studies have found delinquency rates to be lower among Jewsthan among Catholics or Protestants (Ellis, 1985; Jensen and Rojek, 1992).
On the other hand, Hirschi and Stark, as well as Burkett and White,reported no differences in delinquency rates by denomination, althoughno data were presented in support of these conclusions. Another analysis
indicated that church attendance and delinquency were more inversely
related among “fundamentalistic” or “highly ascetic” faiths, such as theChurch of Christ or Church of God, than among other religions ( Jensen
and Erickson, 1979). It would appear more accurate to argue at this
point that the religious convictions of members are more central to an
explanation of their behavior than the fact that they belong to or at-
tend one denomination or another.
In summation, it may be unrealistic to expect the influence of reli-
gion on juvenile delinquency to be greater than that of competing secu-lar forces. At the same time, it would be equally unrealistic to suppose
that religion has no effect on juvenile behavior. Most of the recent re-search discussed above indicates that there isan association between the
two variables, especially in areas where religion is still generally influen-tial and with delinquent offenses for which secular sanctions have be-come ambivalent. A meta-analysis of religion and delinquency studies
further confirms these two views. This research examined 60 studies on
the connection between religion and crime/delinquency, studies largely
conducted after the “Hellfire and Delinquency” study. The authors
concluded that religious participation and beliefs have a modest, but

control theories 227
consistent, negative effect on crime and delinquency, with an overall
correlation value of –. 12. The results also support the notion that reli-
gious participation and/or values have less of an impact on delinquency
in Pacific Coast locations than in other parts of the country, and a greater
inhibitory effect on “nonvictim” acts of delinquency than on propertyand violent crimes (Baier and Wright, 2001).
Family Factors Perhaps one of the most persistent explanations of
delinquent behavior is the breakdown of the family. From the con-cerns of those in the Child-Saving Movement of the nineteenth cen-
tury (Platt, 1977) to the present, the family has been regarded as a ma-
jor variable in the presence or absence of delinquency. This interest in
the family as a factor in delinquency is shared by students of sociology
and psychology. Many of the individualistic theories of delinquency,
such as psychoanalytic explanations, for example, incorporate aberra-tions in family interaction as these occur early in life. Shaw and McKay’s
social disorganization theory of delinquency also viewed the breakdown
of family controls as an important contribution to the development ofsocial disorganization in a neighborhood.
The centrality of family relationships in the explanation of delin-
quency, however, has not always been accepted, particularly amongsociologists. Karen Wilkinson ( 1974) argues that interest in the “bro-
ken home”
3 and delinquency among sociologists can be divided into
three periods: ( 1) a period of keen interest and research activity ( 1900–
1932); (2) a period of rejection of the relationship between the broken
home and delinquency ( 1933–1950); and ( 3) a period of renewed in-
terest in the connection between the broken home and delinquency(1951–1970s).
Partly, this fluctuation reflects various interpretations of empiri-
cal analyses of the relationship. Wilkinson argues, however, that theemphasis, or deemphasis, on family conditions is also related to other
matters, such as ideo logical biases of researchers, political views about
the state of the family and the effects of divorce, and disputes between
such fields as psychology and sociology over the importance of family
intactness versus social class or other sociological concepts in the ex-
planation of delinquency.
The interest in family factors and delinquency has typically involved
both the structure of the family and the nature of relationships occurring

228 theories of delinquency
within the family (see Geismar and Wood, 1986 ; and Wright and Wright,
1994, for reviews of some of this literature). The structure of the family
includes the broken home—that is, a home where one (or both) natu-
ral parent is permanently absent because of events such as death, de-
sertion, or divorce—but, as a force influencing the behavior of youths,this may be changing. The quality of family relationships involves such
factors as parental conflicts, parent-child relationships, and discipline
and supervision patterns. Both of these factors—the structure of thefamily and the nature of family relationships—are now discussed in
connection with delinquency.
BROKEN HOMES The relationship between delinquency and a home bro-
ken by divorce, desertion, or death has been extensively investigated.For the most part, these studies have found that delinquents come from
broken homes significantly more often than nondelinquents. MartinHaskell and Lewis Yablonsky ( 1982), for example, report the findings
of eight studies from 1929 to 1971 that investigated the relationship
between broken homes and delinquency. The range of delinquentsfrom broken homes was 23.6 percent to 61.5 percent, while the range
for nondelinquents was from 12.9 to 36.1 percent.
Similarly, Lawrence Rosen and Kathleen Neilson ( 1978) reported
small but statistically significant associations between broken homes and
male delinquency for 15 studies conducted between 1932 and 1975.
One of the clearest differences between delinquents and
nondelinquents concerning broken homes is provided by Sheldon and
Eleanor Glueck’s comparison of 500 delinquents and 500
nondelinquents ( 1950) previously discussed. Over 60 percent of the
delinquents came from broken homes, as compared with slightly morethan one-third of the nondelinquents.
From a review of several studies of broken homes and delinquency
and an analysis of over 44,000 official delinquents in Philadelphia, Thomas
Monahan ( 1957) concluded that the broken home is definitely related
to delinquency.
Although the evidence seems clear that the broken home is asso-
ciated with delinquency, several doubts exist concerning the impor-
tance of this relationship. First, virtually all of the studies supporting arelationship between broken homes and delinquency have used offi-
cial police, court, or institutional records as the measure of delinquency.

control theories 229
The reported relationships may thus reflect the decisions of juvenile
justice officials to report and process juveniles from broken homes moreoften than juveniles from intact homes. That this bias might exist is
supported by the observation that there is only a small relationship
between the broken home and self-reported delinquency (Nye, 1958;
Hirschi, 1969). There is some indication that single-parent families (es-
pecially mother only) are associated with higher rates of self-report de-linquency (Dornbusch et al., 1985), but this relationship is sometimes
restricted to status offenses (Van Voorhis et al., 1988) or self-reported
legal “trouble” ( Johnson, 1986). In addition, some researchers conclude
that self-reported delinquency, especially among males, is related to thepresence of a stepfather in the home (Dornbusch et al., 1985; Johnson,
1986; Pagani et al., 1998). The influence of stepparents, or the exist-
ence of marital separation, may influence youth deviance throughmechanisms such as weak, or inconsistent, parental support, a point
which is addressed below. In addition, all of these factors might be
influenced by psychological problems of parents, or “multiple-problem”families ( Johnson et al., 1995). Overall, however, research continues
to reveal a relatively weak and inconsistent relationship between self-report delinquency and broken homes.
Second, not all of the studies that have examined the relationship
between official measures of delinquency and the broken home haveconcluded that a significant association exists. In the period between1933 to 1950, rejection of this relationship, for example, was partially
based on Shaw and McKay’s ( 1932) analysis of official delinquency and
broken homes. Essentially, they found the relationship to be insignifi-cant, particularly when controlling for such variables as age and ethnicity.
Third, the relationship between broken homes and delinquency
has almost always been investigated from the point of view of delin-quents rather than broken homes. As a causal variable, however, the
broken home should also be analyzed relative to the proportion of
juveniles from broken homes who are delinquent. Rosen and Neilson(1978) have attempted just such an analysis. They found that the over-
all probability of finding a delinquent (officially identified) from a bro-
ken home was less than the probability of finding a broken home amongdelinquents. The relative probabilities, however, were the same. That
is, delinquents were about three times as likely to be found among

230 theories of delinquency
broken homes as among intact homes, and broken homes were about
three times more likely to be found among delinquents as amongnondelinquents.
More recent reviews of research on the connection between bro-
ken homes and delinquency conclude that there is some connectionbetween the two variables, but the relationship is neither universal nor
particularly strong. In an analysis of 68 published reports on the rela-
tionship between broken homes and delinquency, for example, Free
(1991) concludes that this relationship is decidedly more evident for
status offenses, such as running away, truancy, and disobeying parents,than it is for more serious offenses. In a review of over 50 studies, dat-
ing from the 1920s to the late 1980s, Wells and Rankin ( 1991) con-
clude that the overall relationship between delinquency and brokenhomes is weak, particularly when delinquency is measured by self-reportmethods. Among all the factors concerning the connection between
broken homes and delinquency addressed in this analysis, factors such
as time period, age, gender, race, and type of family “break,” the onewhich emerged as having the strongest relationship was the measure-
ment of delinquency. Specifically, Wells and Rankin conclude that the
strongest association between broken homes and delinquency appearswhen delinquency is defined as “officially contrived” samples of de-
linquents; that is, among populations of youth who have been placed
in institutions or subjected to court-ordered treatment programs. Inthese situations, the incidence of broken homes is particularly high.
Otherwise, the connection between broken homes and delinquency
is weak (p. 88).
FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS While some doubt exists concerning the connec-
tion between broken homes and delinquency, there is considerableevidence that points to a correlation between family relationships anddelinquency. Family relationships, in this context, are usually measured
in terms of interaction, affection, supervision, and discipline between
and among parents and children.
Many investigators who have found a correlation between offi-
cial delinquency and broken homes have also concluded that an as-sociation exists between delinquency and a variety of familyrelationships. The Gluecks, for example, concluded that future de-
linquency in a young boy (preschool age) could be predicted from

control theories 231
knowledge of five family factors, not including the broken home:
(1) discipline by father (overstrict, erratic, or lax discipline was posi-
tively as sociated with delinquency); ( 2) supervision by mother (classi-
fied as “suitable,” “fair,” or “unsuitable” with unsuitable supervisionconnected with delinquency); ( 3) affection of father for son (hostile
or indifferent attitudes were positively related to delinquency); ( 4) af-
fection of mother for son; and ( 5) cohesiveness of family (inversely
related to delinquency; Glueck and Glueck, 1950:260–261).
4
The importance of family relationships, such as supervision and af-
fection patterns, does not necessarily preclude a contribution of the bro-ken home to delinquency. However, the importance of the broken homemay be in its effect on family relationships, which, in turn, have a more
forceful impact on delinquency. It is the nature of what goes on in the
family, therefore, that influences delinquency more than whether or notone parent is absent from the home.
As indicated earlier, the relative influence of family relationships
over the broken home is illustrated in studies utilizing self-report mea-sures of delinquency. Nye ( 1958), for example, closely examined
numerous family factors, including the broken home, and self-reporteddelinquency among 780 high school students in several medium-sized
Washington (state) communities. In all, he tested over 70 associations
separately for mother-daughter, mother-son, father-daughter, andfather-son relationships. Nearly 95 percent of the associations were
consistent with the assumptions of control theory, and about 50 per-
cent of these associations were statistically significant. These parent-child relationships covered such topics as the acceptance or rejectionof parents by children, and vice versa, methods of parental discipline
and punishment, family recreational patterns, and so on. In general,
those adolescents whose parents treated them firmly but with loveand respect tended to be considerably less delinquent than those ju-
veniles whose parents continually nagged or scolded them or treated
them as pawns by making expressions of love or acceptance contin-gent on good behavior.
Interestingly, Nye found little relationship between the physically,
or legally, broken home and delinquency. He did, however, find a sig-nificant inverse association between delinquency and happiness and marital
adjustment, regardless of whether the home was physically broken.

232 theories of delinquency
Hirschi’s ( 1969) analysis of self-report delinquency among 4077
junior and senior high school students in California also failed to dem-
onstrate an association between broken homes and delinquency. Hirschi
did find, however, associations between delinquency and several mea-
sures of family relationships, such as affectional identification with par-ents, intimacy of communication with father, and identification with
father. In general, Hirschi found that delinquency was inversely related
to the bonds of attachment within the juvenile’s family. This relation-ship was supported, moreover, regardless of race or social class. Fur-
thermore, Hirschi’s data led to the conclusion that ties to the family
were inversely related to delinquency, even when parents were “un-conventional” (on welfare or unemployed) and regardless of the exist-
ence of delinquent friends. Attachments to parents and delinquent
companions, however, were independently related to delinquency,which supports both social control theory and differential association.
5
Hirschi’s findings were generally replicated by Michael Hindelang
(1973) in a study of self-report delinquency among 900 adolescents in
a rural area of upstate New York. Specifically, attachment to parents
was inversely related to delinquency (the broken home was not inves-
tigated in this study).
In addition, Yablonsky and Haskell ( 1988) devote considerable
attention to the connection between family factors and delinquency.They conclude that internal patterns of interaction within the familyare more important in the explanation of delinquency than are struc-
tural features of the family, such as broken homes, although the bro-
ken home does play some causal role.
The dynamics of family relationships continue to be studied, in
connection with delinquent behavior. In a survey of over 900 youth
aged12–19, for example, Cernkovich and Giordano ( 1987) conclude
that seven different “family interaction patterns” have various impacts
on self-report delinquency. These patterns are both indirect (that is,
emotional and communicative factors) and direct (that is, control andsupervising behavior). While all but one of the seven dimensions, “in-
timate communication,” were found to have significant associations
with delinquency, the more delinquent youth in the sample were“more likely to have conflicts with their parents,” and to have diffi-
culties with parents over friendship choices (p. 305). The findings of

control theories 233
Cernkovich and Giordano applied across all types of home status,
broken and unbroken, suggesting again that the significant contribu-tion of family life to delinquency lies in the quality of relationships in
the home, not in the structure of the family. (See also, Wells and
Rankin, 1988, for a discussion of the relationship between self-re-
port delinquency and adolescent perceptions of parental punishment
and supervision.)
In addition, evidence continues to suggest some specification of
the relationship between family relationships and delinquency accord-ing to demographic characteristics, such as race and gender. The po-
tential negative impact of stepfathers upon stepsons has already beennoted. In addition, Cernkovich and Giordano ( 1987) found that in-
timate communications were significantly related to delinquency (in-terestingly enough, in a positive direction) only among white males.
On the other hand, identity support from parents was particularly in-
hibitive of delinquency among females. Also, Rosen ( 1985) concludes
that “father-son interaction” was highly associated with delinquency
among a sample of black male 13- to 14-year-olds. However, among
whites social class was more highly related to delinquency than anymeasure of family structure or interaction. Finally, family size andpresence of father in the household did exert some influence on
delinquency within this sample, especially for the white youth cat-
egorized as lower class.
In a more general sense, the conclusions of Loeber and Stouthamer-
Loeber ( 1986) suggest differing racial and socioeconomic effects of fam-
ily factors on delinquent behavior. Based on an extensive review of theliterature, these authors categorized the deleterious effects of family liv-
ing and interaction patterns into four models, or paradigms: neglect;
conflict; deviant behavior and attitudes; and disruption. Their interpre-tation of the research evidence relative to these four paradigms leads
Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber to conclude that several conditions
operate to produce an “at risk” delinquent child, especially if the condi-tions become cumulative. These conditions include a behaviorally dis-
ruptive child (impulsive, overactive, and so forth), poor parenting skills,
marital disharmony, lack of support from relatives or community agen-cies, and ill physical and/or mental health of parents (p. 97). Sometimes,
however, the authors argue that these conditions can be overcome by

234 theories of delinquency
families who have additional resources, such as large family income or
high occupational status, or who are “white affluent families” (p. 96).
As it becomes increasingly clear that patterns of family interaction
contribute to delinquency, as well as to other behavioral problems amongyouth, research is focusing on the nature of these interactions, and theconnections between family conflicts, school problems, peer associations,
and delinquency (Sampson and Laub, 1993:Chapter 4). As mentioned pre-
viously, some studies distinguish between direct and indirect family con-
trols. Direct controls include attempts to restrain the movements of children
through curfews, strict rules, punishments and rewards for disobedience,
and so forth. On the other hand, indirect controls include the constrain-ing effects of strong emotional attachments and positive attitudes which
children feel toward their parents. When these positive attitudes and feel-
ings exist, it is argued that youth will hesitate to commit acts which mightbring shame, embarrassment, or disappointment to their parents and other
family members, as well as to themselves (Nye, 1958:6–7; Rankin and Wells,
1990:141–142; Seydlitz, 1991:177). Sometimes, misbehaving children can
contribute to “bad” parenting. For example, a longitudinal study of 496
middle school adolescent females, aged 11–15, concluded that the girls’
misbehavior predicted ineffective parenting more than poor parenting
predicted the females’ delinquency (Huh et al., 2006).
This research points to complex interactions between these types
of controls and their influence on delinquency (Rankin and Wells, 1990).
In addition, the impact of parental methods of control on delinquency
is affected by age, gender, and type of delinquency. In analyses of direct
and indirect control patterns and delinquency among a national sampleof white male and female youth living with bothbiological parents, for
example, Seydlitz ( 1991,1993) concludes that direct controls may in-
crease tensions and the rebellious behavior of children, when indirectcontrols are weak. Furthermore, this relationship seems particularly likely
for females in the mid-adolescent age range (especially in interactions
with mothers) and for status offenses, such as parental disobedience, and“substance abuse.” Seydlitz suggests that the combination of low attach-
ment of children to parents and strict parental control may be indicative
of “dysfunctional families,” and thus connected with more behavioralproblems than status offending among the children in the family ( 1993:265).
Similarly, Marc LeBlanc’s research suggests that internal constraints are

control theories 235
most important in controlling criminality among older youth, and that a
principle component of internal constraint (which LeBlanc identifies asa direct control mechanism) is belief in, and respect for, the validity of
the law (LeBlanc, 1995).
Other studies suggest that ineffective parental behavior (including
parental infighting) may not lead directly to rebellion and control prob-lems of youth. Rather, these difficulties in familial relationships may
indirectly lead to delinquency by negatively affecting a child’s perfor-mance in school and/or increasing the likelihood for developing devi-
ant peer associations (DiLalla et al., 1988; Simons et al., 1991). For example,
a study of adolescent drug use and delinquency in Sweden concluded
that lack of parental control and deviant peer associations both con-
tributed to delinquency among males and females. However, among
females, when parental controls weakened, this often led to more as-sociations with delinquent peers and then to drug use, but such inter-
actions did not appear among males (Svensson, 2003). Evidence
continues to document the independent importance of parental con-
trol, and similar parenting efforts, on adolescent behavior, although the
impact may be modest (Wright and Cullen, 2001). Also, research indi-
cates that peer relationships may be affected more by the amount of
time spent with the family than by a juvenile’s emotional attachments
to parents (Warr, 1993).
In Chapter 6, the prevalence of single-parent families, especially
single mothers, living within or near the poverty level was discussed.Within the context of the present topic, broken homes and delin-
quency, it should be noted that the connection between poverty,single parenthood, and delinquency has not escaped the attention of
researchers (Sampson, 1987; Wright and Wright, 1994). In many cases,
however, the conclusions of this research point to the impact of
poverty on parental resources as an important factor in the control
single parents may be able to exercise on children (McLanahan and
Booth, 1989:558–560). In addition to lack of economic resources, for
example, poverty may inhibit effective supervision of youth such that
single parents are unable to afford day care or other supervisory ar-
rangements while they are working, shopping, or performing othernecessary parental duties (McLanahan and Booth, 1989:566; Sampson
and Laub, 1994). Also, living in poverty may be associated with the

236 theories of delinquency
social disorganization of neighborhoods, and the connections of these
living conditions with delinquency (Sampson, 1987; McLanahan and
Booth, 1989:568; see also, Chapter 5 in this volume). Sampson ( 1992)
makes the interesting observation that broken homes in a neighbor-hood may alter adult patterns of supervision and other forms of socialcontrol of children in the area, which may in turn contribute to greater
levels of delinquency in these neighborhoods, whether the delinquents
are residing in single-parent homes.
In addition, officials in a community may react to family structures
in ways that may contribute to higher rates of delinquency for youthliving in single-parent homes. Single mothers may be particularly vulner-able to the biases and prejudices of others in the community, such as
school authorities, the police, courts, and social service workers, which
may lead to intervention from these authorities and to higher rates ofarrest, court referral, and other legal actions against their children (Wright
and Wright, 1994:11–12). These conditions may be even more pro-
nounced for younger single mothers (Morash and Rucker, 1989).
In a longitudinal study of nearly 1 million children reared from age 6
to18 in one- or two-parent homes in Sweden, it was concluded that youth
living in single-parent homes are at significantly greater risk of suffering an
injury, having a psychiatric disease, attempting or completing suicide, or
addiction, compared to children reared in two-parent households (Weitoft,
et al., 2003). These effects remained after controlling for suspected con-
founding factors, such as parents’ SES and addiction status. It was suggested
by the authors that single-parent homes might still be exhibiting conflicts
between mother and father, if the home were broken by divorce. In ad-dition, single parents in Sweden may be more affected by loss of time than
of economic resources, and this could affect supervision efforts and effec-
tiveness. However, as the authors noted, the study was not able to distin-guish effects based on reason for breakup, or even whether parents were
natural or unrelated to the youth. In addition, while the study did not rely
upon self-report behaviors, it did utilize public hospitals and clinics, whichmay have increased the observation of children from single-parent homes
as patients in such facilities. Youth from two-parent homes might also have
been in need of treatment, but went to private hospitals or specialists, orhad other resources for care and treatment, which were not as open to
inspection by the investigators.

control theories 237
Additional evidence suggests that divorce may have long-lasting
effects on children, or at least consequences which may have ripple
effects in later years (Wallerstein et al., 2000). Continued investigation
into the impact of divorce suggests that remarriage can have particu-larly strong effects on status offending, but also on other forms of de-linquency (Rebellion, 2002). In addition, a longitudinal analysis on the
results of abuse and maltreatment on a sample of youth in Rochester,New York, concluded that maltreatment during childhood had less
negative impact than did such behavior on youth in mid-late adoles-
cence (Ireland et al., 2002).
Also, research continues to document a connection between pa-
rental criminality, including imprisonment, and delinquency, or factorswhich may lead to delinquency, such as drug abuse, family and living
arrangement stability, lack of education, and child abuse. Thus, theargument concerning whether one parent is sufficient to rear children
with few problems should also consider the nature of the parents’ be-
havior. Sometimes, living with both parents may contribute to delin-quency, if one or both of the parents manifest criminal behavior patterns
( Jaffee et al., 2003; Smith and Farrington, 2004; Murray and Farrington,
2005; Phillips et al., 2006).
While these intervening and connecting factors might contribute to
delinquency in single-parent families, it should be remembered that the
overall relationship between broken homes and self-report delinquency isrelatively weak. Furthermore, evidence consistently points to the impor-
tance of parent-child relationships as a key factor in the explanation of
delinquency, in any kind of family situation. Seydlitz’s conclusions, forexample, were based on a sample of youth living with both parents. Fur-
thermore, her conclusion that direct controls contributed to delinquency
among females specified that this relationship was particularly strong whenindirect controls were weak. Using national survey data (the National Youth
Survey), Rankin and Kern ( 1994) indicate that strong attachments of youth
to both parents are associated with lower rates of delinquency, as com-
pared with strong attachment to one parent, but this relationship is dis-
cussed simply in terms of general social bond theory. Rankin and Kern do
not distinguish between direct and indirect parental controls. Nor do theyevaluate their findings relative to competing theoretical perspectives or
within various contexts.

238 theories of delinquency
Some research concludes that economic hardships, even among
parents living together and in rural areas, can contribute to parental
conflicts and poor “parenting,” and consequently to delinquency and
other behavioral problems among the children in these families (Conger
et al., 1992). Thus, while it may be informative and helpful to know
why single-parent family situations may contribute to delinquency, it
should not be forgotten that it is not the legal status of the marriage
which matters most in this situation. Rather, of greater importance isthe socio-emotional status of the patterns of interaction among the
members of the family (McCord, 1991).
Overall, it would appear that the association between delinquency
and broken homes is as much a reflection of intervening factors andthe attitudes and decisions of juvenile justice personnel as it is a reflec-
tion of the delinquency-producing tendencies of broken homes. How-ever, the nature of parent-child interactions and the general atmosphere
within the home, whether broken or intact, have been consistently
related to delinquency. Accordingly, it would be a mistake to acceptthe conclusions of many sociologists during the middle of the twenti-
eth century—namely, that family-connected variables have no place in
the explanation of delinquency. Clearly, family relationships are impor-tant and it is logical to locate the etiological significance of these fac-
tors within the framework of social control theory.
School Experiences and Delinquency Achievement, participation,
and overall involvement in school-related activities have been con-nected with delinquency for a long time. The negative associa-
tion between grades in school (achievement) and delinquency wasdiscussed in Chapter 6 , in connection with Albert Cohen’s middle-
class measuring rod theory of delinquency. The influences of in-telligence and learning disabilities have also been discussed in ear-lier chapters. It would appear that little more could be added to
establish the significance of school situations in the explanation
of juvenile delinquency. Because school activities constitute sucha large focal point for adolescent behavior (Jensen and Rojek, 1992),
and because attachment and commitment to school represent an-other major component of the social control theory of delinquency,it is appropriate to reconsider such issues at this point. The pur-
pose of the following discussion is to comment on the comparative

control theories 239
influence of these conditions, since the primary influence has al-
ready been established.
One of the clearest comparative assessments of the influence of school
factors on delinquency is provided by Hirschi ( 1969). In particular, Hirschi
compared “attachment to parents (father)” with “attachment to school”and found that those who were unattached to their parents were also dis-
affiliated with school (including their teachers). He also found that pos-
sessing favorable attitudes toward school, including favorable attitudestoward teachers, was associated with lower rates of delinquency, regard-
less of the strength of attachments to the father (Hirschi, 1969:131–132). In
other words, while attachment to parents is definitely related to delin-
quency, its effects tend to be overshadowed by affiliations with school
(see also, Johnson, 1979:115–120; LeBlanc, 1994; and Jenkins, 1995).
In a study of 482 official delinquents and 185 nondelinquents in
Utah and Los Angeles, Lamar T. Empey and Steven G. Lubeck ( 1971)
found that both family variables (broken homes, parental harmony,
relations with parents) and school factors (particularly grades in school)were highly associated with delinquency in both settings. When the
two sets of conditions were simultaneously compared, however, the
data clearly indicated that school (as measured by dropouts) had a stron-ger direct effect on delinquency than family (as measured by boy-par-
ent harmony) in Los Angeles. In Utah, the direct effect of dropout
was somewhat stronger than the effect of harmony with parents, butthe differences were not as pronounced as in Los Angeles.
A retrospective study of violent behavior among male prison in-
mates in Minnesota examined the potential impact of family, school,and media experiences on the violent crimes of the prisoners
(Kruttschnitt et al., 1986). While noting the impact of parental violence,
poor family relationships, and parental absence on violent behavior, the
authors concluded that these negative associations were most pro-
nounced among minority inmates. However, for bothAfrican-American
and white prisoners the only factor associated with violent crime was
their assessment of how important doing well in school was to them
during adolescence (p. 258).
However, some research suggests that the truer link between school
problems and delinquency lies with aggressive behavior, which pre-dicts both school problems, including special education placement, and

240 theories of delinquency
delinquency, at least more serious forms of delinquency, such as vio-
lence and burglary or automobile theft (White and Loeber, 2008).
A comparison of family and school factors and self-report delin-
quency among a sample of high school students in California and Wis-consin over a period of two years concluded that school-related variableswere more closely associated with delinquency than were family fac-
tors, and in the predicted direction, that is, as the values of school bonds
indicators increased, delinquency decreased. While some differencesbetween girls and boys emerged, essentially, these findings pertained
to both genders. Bond factors also reduced the impact of deviant friends
on delinquency in this study. However, the “protective’ value of bonds,either familial or school-based, was less for alcohol and drug use than
for delinquency in general (Crosnoe et al., 2002).
While the comparative assessments described above point to the greater
impact on delinquency of school factors, compared to family variables,these comparisons are based on limited sample sizes within specific geo-
graphical settings. The research reviewed in this chapter, and in Chapter 6,
suggests strong connections between delinquency and both negative family
and school experiences (see also, Sheu, 1986:Chapter 5). In addition, some
suggest that parental attachment affects delinquency, which then affects
school performance, which then affects parental attachment (Liska and
Reed, 1985:556–557). Furthermore, differing effects may be related to ra-
cial and subcultural settings. Poor family attachment, for example, may be
more predictive of delinquency among minority youth, whereas white
juveniles may be more negatively affected by unhappy school experiences
(although Liska and Reed, 1985, offer a different conclusion).
In a study of school bonding and delinquency, Cernkovich and
Giordano ( 1992) conclude that attachment and commitment to school
and teachers are negatively associated with self-reported delinquency.This relationship, more over, holds when controlling for race, gender,
parental communication, perceptions of opportunity, and SES (pp. 275–279).
Overall, the authors conclude that school bonding is moderately asso-ciated with delinquency, but that nevertheless school factors are no
less important in the understanding of delinquency than are other vari-
ables, such as parental and peer attachments (p. 280). However, their
analysis did find some differences by race. In particular, among Afri-
can-American males, the greater the involvement in school activities,

control theories 241
the higher the level of delinquency (p. 278). This finding, and others,
lead the authors to suspect that the connection between school bond-
ing and race is more complex than their basic results suggest, and that
racial comparisons should continue to be investigated (pp. 283–286).
Additional research on this topic, using a national sample, indicates that
school activities are associated with more delinquency involvement
among African-American youth in schools which are predominantlyAfrican-American. However, for black youth, there is a negative asso-ciation between delinquency and school involvement in schools where
African-Americans are in a minority (Hoffman and Xu, 2002).
A study of high school students in Oklahoma also concluded that
the relationship between school bonds and delinquency differs by race.While noting that delinquency increased self-esteem among African Ameri-
cans, contrary to Caucasians and American Indians (see the earlier discus-sion), the author of this study concluded that making good grades is
associated with increased interpersonal delinquency among African Ameri-
cans. This finding is interpreted as indicating that making good grades is
negatively evaluated among one’s peers and can lead to difficulties in so-
cial interactions, and by implication, higher involvement in delinquency.
However, school attachmen t, that is, liking things at school, is associated with
lower delinquency involvement. Similar findings were noted for American
Indians in this study, but not among Caucasians. These findings promptedthe author to suggest that doing well in school, in terms of grades, may benegatively received among one’s peers in minority settings where people
feel “devalued” because this kind of success is an indication of accepting
the “dominant culture’s norms and values”; that is, mainstream Americans’definition of how to achieve success (Owens-Sabir, 2007:116–117). This
view is similar to Cohen’s interpretation of gang delinquency, discussed inChapter 7, but with the inclusion of race and cultural values instead of
social class values.
Continued research on the relationship between academic per-
formance and delinquency suggests that objective measures of gradesoffer a more consistent relationship with delinquency than do self-re-
ported grades. Furthermore, one possible explanation of why poor
grades are associated with delinquency is that young people do notfully comprehend the negative impact failing grades may have on fur-
ther educational and occupational opportunities (Siennick and Staff,

242 theories of delinquency
2008). This view is somewhat consistent with social bond theory in
that it suggests that those with little educational achievement may have
difficulties in establishing strong occupational ties to society as adults.
Juveniles may be committed to doing well in school, but they do not
understand the fuller impact of poor grades on future opportunities,or perhaps how grades are interpreted (Siennick and Staff, 2008).
Research continues to document a clear and significant associa-
tion between abuse and risky behavior, including drug use and delin-quency, as well as a variety of other social problems among youth, such
as teenage pregnancy and depressive symptoms (Stouthamer-Loeber,
et al., 2001; Thornberry et al., 2001). In addition, this association ap-
pears to be stronger if the abuse occurs during adolescence, as opposed
to childhood, a finding consistent with that of Ireland et al. ( 2002),
noted earlier. However, some research suggests that the negative ef-
fects of corporal punishment (not necessarily child abuse) can be over-
come through effective, “warm,” parenting, or, basically, a loving
relationship between parent and child (Simons et al., 2000). Presum-
ably, these kinds of positive parent-child interactions would further
enchance a child’s ability to overcome the impact(s) of punitive be-
haviors, again, when combined with good experiences at school. Inaddition, Zingraff et al. ( 1994) demonstrate that good academic per-
formance (as indicated by grades, attendance, and lack of in-school be-havior problems) reduces the risk of delinquency among all youth,including abused children. Their results suggest that attempts to keep
youth in school and to encourage good academic performance can lead
to lower rates of delinquency, regardless of child abuse and neglect(pp.83–85; see also, Hirschi, 1969: Chapter 7).
Some suggest that strong social bonds can operate to provide “at
risk” youth—those with disadvantaged family and early childhood en-vironmental circumstances, although not necessarily abused—with
“resilience” to resist opportunities and temptations to commit acts ofdelinquency and misconduct. In particular, it is suggested that schoolfactors, such as commitment and attachment to school, provide the
strongest resilience for these otherwise “disadvantaged” youth (Smith
et al., 1995:233–238). Others remind us that a strong social bond to
the school environment can also result in less delinquency commit-
tedat school ( Jenkins, 1997).

control theories 243
Future investigations in these areas should continue to provide more
answers concerning the relative impact of family and school associa-
tions on delinquency among all youth, as well as young people of dif-
ferent age, racial, social class, and gender categories.
Other Considerations The foregoing discussions lead to the gen-
eral conclusion that religious, family, and school variables are associ-ated with both official and self-report measures of delinquency. In this
sense, therefore, social control theory is supported by the data.
Social control theory also argues that delinquency is related to
delinquent attitudes and beliefs. This position has received consider-able support in the formulations and testing of differential associationand neutralization theory, as discussed in Chapter 7. In addition, em-
pirical assessments of social control theory per se have clearly supportedthe hypothesized relationship between delinquent attitudes and delin-quent behavior (Hirschi, 1969; Hindelang, 1973).
Moreover, attempts to compare various elements of social control
theory with structural theories of delinquency (such as anomie and lower-class culture theories) have indicated that social control variables are at
least as powerful as structural variables in the explanation of delinquency,
and often more so (Cernkovich, 1978; Eve, 1978; Kornhauser, 1978 ; Knox,
1981; Joseph, 1995).
In numerous ways, therefore, the assumptions of social control
theory have received considerable support in the literature. By no meanshave all of the issues and associated questions relative to social control
theory been resolved. First, not all investigations of delinquency have
supported the tenets of social control, especially with respect to thetopic of conformity (Rankin, 1977).
Second, the strength of institutional attachments of conformity (or
the lack of such attachments in relation to delinquency) must be con-sidered in terms of cultural and historical values and conditions. A study
of official delinquency and family factors in Israel, for example, found
the two to be unrelated (Rahav, 1976). In addition, an analysis of self-
reported delinquency indicated that youth in rural areas were less de-
linquent than youth in urban locations. Moreover, delinquents in general
exhibited weaker social bonds than did nondelinquents. However, ruralyouths were no more committed to the legitimacy of authority and
institutions in society than were urban juveniles. Commitment, or social

244 theories of delinquency
bonds, therefore, did not explain the differences in delinquency rates
between rural and urban youngsters (Lyerly and Skipper, 1981).
A rural-urban comparative analysis of self-reported delinquency
indicated that social bond variables provided a good explanation ofdelinquency among the youth living in the rural area, but not amongurban juveniles, although these results were confounded by the high
percentage of African-American youth in the urban location and the
equally high percentage of white juveniles in the rural area (Gardnerand Shoemaker, 1989). Other research indicates racial/ethnic impacts,
within the United States, on the relationship between delinquency andthe social bond (Weber et al., 1995).
In addition, a study of self-reported delinquency in the Philip-
pines indicated that social bond factors accounted for approximately20 percent of the variance of delinquency, particularly minor forms of
delinquent conduct, among male youth. On the other hand, these same
factors provided little understanding of delinquency among the females
in the sample (Shoemaker, 1994; see also, Gutierrez and Shoemaker,
2008). Another study of self-report delinquency among rural high school
and junior high school students in France concludes that delinquencyis better explained by differential association factors, as opposed to socialbond variables, and this conclusion pertains to both males and females
(Hartjen and Priyadarsini, 2003).
Other cross-cultural research suggests that social bond variables may
be of limited power in the explanation of delinquency, particularlyfemale delinquency, in societies which are characterized by high levels
of informal control, such as Japan (Tanioka and Glaser, 1991) and India
(Hartjen and Kethineni, 1993). Of course, delinquency in these coun-
triesmay be explained by a lack of strong bonds to important institu-
tional figures, such as parents, teachers, and so on. It would seem fromthese analyses, however, that such controls are so strong within the
culture, particularly among females, that relatively little variance in de-
linquency is to be explained by weakened social bonds.
One interesting aspect of such cultural effects is provided in
Tanioka and Glaser’s research on self-reported delinquency in Japan.
Their study suggests that the wearing of school uniforms (among stu-dents in private schools) contributes to the “web of control” exer-
cised by adults in Japanese communities. Students are easily recognized

control theories 245
and identified by their school uniforms. Consequently, acts of delin-
quency, particularly criminal acts, are associated with not wearing schooluniforms (pp. 62–70).
However, not all cross-cultural studies conclude that the impact
of the social bond on delinquency is culturally specific. A comparativeanalysis of delinquency among youth from four ethnic groups living in
the Netherlands (Junger and Marshall, 1997) found consistent patterns
of social bonding and delinquency across all four ethnic categories
(Turkish, Surinamese, Moroccan, and Dutch). This topic clearly needs
to be more thoroughly investigated.
Third, the importance of other factors in the explanation of
delinquency is indicated by the proportion of delinquent behaviorexplained by social control variables (when this assessment has been
possible to ascertain). Few estimates exceed 50 percent, a figure
which is impressive relative to other explanations of delinquency
but far from allowing one to conclude that social control factors
determine delinquency.
Fourth, the specific qualities of religious participation, family in-
teractions, and school activities that foster delinquency are far fromhaving been consistently identified. Certain situations are now stronglysuggestive of delinquency, such as lax, inconsistent, or physically abu-
sive parental discipline techniques. The thrust of previous research, how-
ever, has been on the general influence on delinquency of ties andaffections with social institutions rather than on specific types of at-
tachments, commitments, or activities that might more or less contrib-
ute to delinquency.
Fifth, evidence suggests that the effect of the social bond on de-
linquency is age specific, as mentioned earlier. Some research concludes,for example, that the social bond is a stronger inhibitor of delinquencyamong 15-year-olds (those in the “middle” of adolescence) than among
other youth (LaGrange and White, 1985), while other studies suggest
that the effect of the bond may be greater among younger juvenilesand for less serious offenders in general (Agnew, 1985; LeBlanc,
1992:342–343). In addition, some conclude that the impact of the so-
cial bond on delinquency may vary in content with age such that fam-ily variables are more important among younger children, while school
factors become more salient with middle adolescents, and conventional

246 theories of delinquency
beliefs assume a greater inhibitory role for older youth (Thornberry,
1987; Shoemaker and Gardner, 1988).
Sixth, longitudinal studies are beginning to appear, and some re-
sults indicate that there is a reciprocal effect on the connection between
the social bond and delinquency. That is, when juveniles are surveyedover several points in time, it has been found that delinquency can
weaken the social bond, and vice versa (Liska and Reed, 1985), and
that a weak social bond may explain initial instances of delinquency
but not continued occurrences (Agnew, 1985).
More recent longitudinal studies indicate the need not only to
assess the impact of delinquency on weakened social bonds, but alsothe impact of social bond factors on each other (Thornberry, 1987;
Agnew, 1991; Thornberry et al., 1994), as well as the idea that the re-
ciprocal interactions between parental behavior and delinquency canbe influenced by the juvenile’s age. Patterns of discipline and supervi-
sion which may work for younger children may not be effective for
older adolescents ( Jang and Smith, 1997:326–328). These views extend
earlier conceptualizations which argue that weakened social bonds pre-
cede, or occur simultaneously with, delinquent behavior (Hirschi, 1969;
Empey and Lubeck, 1971; Jensen, 1972; Linden and Hackler, 1973;
Hepburn, 1977; Phillips and Kelly, 1979). In addition, newer analyses
indicate that peer associations, and other factors such as strain theory
(see Chapter 6), modify the impact of social bond on delinquency (see,
for example, the insightful critique of social control theory offered by
Greenberg, 1999). Agnew ( 1993), for example, contends that weak-
ened social bonds contribute to delinquency primarily among those
youth who feel angry and frustrated with their situations in school orat home, and/or who associate with delinquent peers. These kinds
of interactions were also identified in the preceding discussions offamily- and school-related factors. The whole issue of reciprocity and
interaction between delinquency and its assumed antecedents will
be discussed again, in the last chapter of this book, under the topic of
integrated theories.
The overall assessment of the social control theory of delinquency,
despite these issues and concerns, is that it has generally been supportedby research. The idea that a social bond to conventional activities and
values inhibits delinquency is persuasive in its empirical support, although

control theories 247
clearly this explanation of delinquency cannot stand alone. In particu-
lar, current research suggests a strong link between both peer associa-tions and institutional attachments and delinquency. Continued
investigation into these two areas of interest promises to yield signifi-
cant contributions to a further understanding of delinquent behavior.
6
A General Theory of Crime
In1990, Hirschi and his colleague, Michael Gottfredson, introduced
a newer conceptualization of criminality, the “general theory of crime”
(Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). According to this view, most, not
all, crime and delinquency can be attributed to an underlying condi-tion of low self-control . Not just criminal acts are the consequence of
low self-control, but general acts of deviance are also thought to be
the result of low self-control (p. 91).Self-control is very similar to
some of the personality components of delinquency discussed in
Chapter 4. In particular, it is similar to the construct of impulsivity
(pp. 88–90), which has been linked to delinquency in several
psychological studies. However, Gottfredson and Hirschi claim thatlow self-control is not inborn, but, rather it is learned . Thus, this view
of delinquency is also a social process, learning explanation of delinquentbehavior.
While there are several possible settings for the learning of low
self-control to occur, Gottfredson and Hirschi claim that self-controlis primarily learned within the famil y setting. Thus, many of the family-
related contributors to delinquency discussed earlier in his chapter,
such as supervision, discipline, and broken homes, are now raised as
contributors to low self-control and thus to criminality. In addition,the authors suggest that low self-control is learned by an early age
and that the characteristics of crime, presumably including low self-
control, are evidenced “prior to the age of responsibility for crime”(p.90), which, according to early religious views of sin and to English
Common Law, is age seven (Kerper, 1972:70–71). Even though the
level of self-control may fluctuate over time, once learned, low self-control will remain a constant characteristic of crime and delinquency
(Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990: Chapter 5). In this manner, the theory

248 theories of delinquency
has similarities to psychoanalytic theory, which places much of the
emphasis on personality development in the years before adulthood,but can persist through life. Thus, this conceptualization of delinquent
behavior contains some elements of social process theory as well as char-
acteristics of trait theory, or individualistic explanations of criminality, aconnection which will be discussed in more detail below.
Since the introduction of this theory, there have been many stud-
ies attempting to examine the relationship between low self-controland criminality, with many efforts developed to measure self-control.
Generally, these efforts have been supportive of the basic tenets of
the theory (Grasamick et al., 1993; Wood et al., 1993; Evans et al.,
1997; Gibbs et al., 1998). Moreover, the identification of low self-
control as an explanation of delinquency is consistent with the in-clusion of “arousal” constructs in the examination of various socialcontrols, such as religiosity, on delinquency (see above; also, Cochran
et al., 1994).
In a review of the literature on this theory, Michael Gottfredson
(2006) concludes that the bulk of the examinations and tests of the gen-
eral theory of crime have been supportive of its assumptions. He argues
that tests of the theory have confirmed its propositions for males andfemales, different age groups, cross-culturally, for criminal and general
acts of deviant behavior, including “problem behaviors,” and in accor-
dance with general crime rates (pp. 83–86). Gottfredson concludes, “It
seems fair to conclude that the empirical literature provides a very broad,
empirical consensus about self-control as a general cause of crime, delin-
quency, and problem behaviors” (p. 86; see also, Vazsoyni et al., 2001,
2004, and Tangney et al., 2004). In addition, some research indicates that
low self-control can mediate, or explain, the relationship between lowacademic achievement and delinquency (see the discussion on this topicabove, in this chapter, and in Chapter 6). In this scenario, low academic
achievers are characterized by low self-control, which explains both lowgrades in school and delinquency. Thus, delinquency is more the resultof low self-control than of weak social bonds to teachers and the school
setting in general (Felson and Staff, 2006).
On the other hand, several studies either provide only partial sup-
port for the theory, or suggest that low self-control has variant explana-tory power across different sociocultural contexts (Akers, 1991;

control theories 249
Creechen, 1995; Longshore et al., 1996; Arneklev et al., 1998; and Piquero
and Rosay, 1998). In a meta-analysis of 21 studies concerning this theory,
Pratt and Cullen ( 2000) conclude that low self-control is an important
predictor of crime, and that this is true across various social situations
and different measures of the concept. However, the impact of lowself-control does not seem to reduce the importance of other factors,
such as differential associations and definitions of crime (see Chapter 7).
In addition, the impact of low self-control is weaker in longitudinal
studies, compared to more static studies. Basically, Pratt and Cullen con-
clude that the idea there is a constant, underlying, cause of delinquency,
such as low self-control, “that does not work through other variablesover the life course, is not supported by our analysis . . .” (p. 952).
Some research questions the stability aspect of the general theory, sug-
gesting that levels of self-control can and do change over time, includingamong adolescents (Jang and Krohn, 1995; Bartusch et al., 1997; Tittle and
Grasmick, 1998; LaGrange and Silverman, 1999; Mitchell and MacKenzie,
2006; Winfree et al., 2006), and that parenting styles can have an impact on
the stability of self-control (Burt et al., 2006). It should be noted that the
general theory of crime does not strictly claim that self-control does notchange; rather, the relative levels of self-control between criminals and non-
criminals will remain separate. Still, that levels of self-control can change,
and sometimes within a period of six months (Mitchell and MacKenzie.
2006), does not lend strong support to this proposition of the theory. In
addition, a self-report study among a sample of adults in Oklahoma indi-cated that the impact of self-control on crime and deviance declined with
age categories, being highest among young adults aged 18–24 and lowest
among the elderly aged 65 and over (Tittle et al., 2003:446).
Other studies conclude that low self-control is one of several fac-
tors which help to explain delinquency, including delinquent peers,
social bonds, poverty, and general strain. In these studies, low self-con-
trol either operates along with these other variables or combines with
them interactively to explain delinquency (Katz, 1999; Baron, 2003; De
Li,2004; Doherty, 2006; Longshore et al., 2005; McGloin and Shermer,
2009). Additional research questions the generalization of the theory
cross-culturally (Marenin and Resig, 1995; Arneklev et al., 1993), al-
though some studies support cross-cultural validity of the theory, as
was indicated earlier.

250 theories of delinquency
Overall, low self-control seems a plausible explanation of general
expressions of crime and delinquency, but neither complete or over-
whelming. Some aspects of the theory, such as the emphasis on paren-
tal impacts in the production of low self-control, seem plausible in view
of the evidence, as discussed earlier in this chapter (see also, Cullenand Agnew, 2006:214). However, ineffective parenting may have ge-
netic connections (Wright and Beaver, 2005; see also, Chapter 3) or be
connected with social learning or traditional social bond explanationsof delinquency (Unnever, et al., 2006; see also, above and Chapter 7).
Other components of the theory, such as the heavy emphasis on
impulsivity, suggest a basic psychological trait explanation of delin-quency, and these efforts have not been highly successful, as was dis-
cussed in Chapter 4 (see also, Quay, 1987, and Arbuthnot et al., 1987).
While several individualistic explanations of criminality do emphasize
impulsivity, many of them add other psychological features as well. In
addition, some earlier efforts to identify psychological associations with
criminality, such as the MMPI (see Chapter 4) included impulsiveness
as part of their scales of individual traits, but impulsivity did not consis-
tently distinguish criminals from noncriminals (Vold et al., 2002:77–83).
In addition, earlier attempts to test this explanation were often
faced with tautological interpretations of results, since the possession of
low self-control was defined by behavioral patterns of crime, delin-
quency, or more general patterns of deviance (Arneklev et al., 1998;
Longshore et al., 1998; Piquero and Rosay, 1998; Vold et al., 2002:192–193).
More recent measures of low self-control seem to be addressing thesetautological issues by developing independent assessments of self-control, such as police reports (Gottfredson, 2006:93–95), and self-report
scales which do not contain behavioral assessments (Tangney et al.,2004). Nonetheless, the topic of tautology is an important consider-
ation, and the continued specification of the concept of low self-control
should be encouraged.
Also, the claim that levels of self-control seem to be maximized by
the age of criminal responsibility, or around age 7 to 8, seems to be
implausible (Vold et al., 2002:192), especially in consideration of the
tendency for crime to increase with age until the mid- to late teens
and then decline thereafter (see Chapters 7 and 9). In addition, this
view seems to contradict research which demonstrates different patterns

control theories 251
of delinquency, such as the adolescence-limited pathway and life-course
view of delinquency (see Chapter 12). For example, some research
suggests that low self-control may offer a solid explanation of minor
forms of delinquency which last a year or so (adolescence-limited), but
combines with neurological and other psychological and biological fac-tors to explain more serious and longer-lasting (life-course persistent)
forms of delinquency (Cauffman et al., 2005). Additional discussion of
self-control theory is presented in Chapter 12, in consideration of the
developmental, pathways views of delinquency.
Summary
Control theories of delinquency, including those of Reckless, Hirschi,
and others, have much empirical support. They consist of concepts
that are measurable and that are based on logical properties which haveinformed popular and scientific opinions regarding delinquency for
decades. While many questions relative to these theories remain un-
solved, the research conducted thus far suggests that control theoriesare supported and worthy of continued investigation. This conclusion
is particularly valid for the proposition that attachments and commit-
ments to conventional institutions in society (the social bond) are as-sociated with low rates of delinquency. More recently, the concept of
low self-control has been offered as a variant of control explanations
of delinquency. This connection has been the subject of intense re-search and reflection for several years, and the conclusions are mixed.
There is enough evidence in the literature to conclude that low self-
control is a contributor to criminality, even though this concept isconnected with parenting skills and many other contextual situations.
Of course, control theories cannot explain all acts of delinquency,
nor can they predict what specific types of delinquency will develop. Inaddition, even though it has been established that positive self-concepts
and attachments to conventional beliefs and institutions in society “pro-
tect,” or “insulate,” one from delinquent involvement, a key question stillremains: “How are self-concepts and attachments produced and changed?”
Containment and social control theories must yield to other explanations

252 theories of delinquency
for an answer to this question, and it has been shown that numerous theories
have approached this issue from many different viewpoints. In essence,control theories assume an intermediate, intervening position between
delinquency and a variety of preconditions. Regardless of specific con-
tributing factors, therefore, it would appear appropriate and potentially morefruitful to focus attention on more immediate precursors to delinquency—
namely, self-concepts, self-control, and social bonds, including those as-
sociated with peers.
Notes
1. Others have viewed Reckless’ theory as an example of a social control
theory of delinquency (Gibbons and Krohn, 1986). Using the conceptualizations
developed in the current text, however, containment theory is more appropri-
ately classified as an example of personal control theories.
2. On this point, it should be noted that Reckless and Dinitz ( 1972) con-
ducted an extensive delinquency prevention program, based on self-conceptimprovement. While no significant differences appeared between experimen-tal and control subjects, containment theory per se was not rejected becausethe treatment program also produced no significant changes in self-concept.
3. The term “broken homes” is used in this context to refer to an opera-
tional component of a large body of research. Its use is not meant to imply theexistence, or advocacy, of any particular standard or ideal family constellation.In fact, the position advocated in this text is that family structure is less impor-tant as a determinant of social relationships, or of socialization patterns, than isthe nature of the relationships among the members of any family context.
4. Another investigation of official delinquency also found support for an
association between “intrafamily problems,” including broken homes, anddelinquency, particularly in an urban area (Los Angeles) as compared to thestate of Utah (Empey and Lubeck, 1971). Multivariate analysis, furthermore,
indicated that family relationships, especially as measured by “boy-parentharmony,” were more predictive of delinquency than was parental separation.Furthermore, a reanalysis of the Gluecks’ data, using multivariate techniques,confirmed the strength of family relationships in the explanation of delinquency(Laub and Sampson, 1988).
5. In another analysis, Hirschi ( 1983) contends that criminal parents tend to
have a disproportionate number of delinquent children. This relationship may betrue, and its existence may be explained by several factors. In particular, Hirschimaintains that criminal parents may not “recognize” patterns of criminality in

control theories 253
their own children (p. 8). Thus, the sons and daughters of criminal parents are
not taught that stealing, for instance, is wrong. In effect, they are not punished
for their misdeeds, not because their parents do not want to punish bad behavior,but because these parents literally do not see their youngsters’ behavior as wrong.In this scenario, attachment to criminal parents may actually be associated withhigher rates of delinquency, although attachment to parents and recognition ofcriminality in children’s behavior are not necessarily related.
6. A good review of the empirical literature on social control theory is found
in Kempf ( 1993). Also, in that same volume, LeBlanc and Caplan ( 1993) present
a formal analysis of social control theory, one which should stimulate more criti-cal conceptualization of this explanation of delinquency in future research.
References
Akers, Ronald L., 1991, “Self-Control as a General Theory of Crime.” Jour-
nal of Quantitative Criminology 7:201–211.
Arneklev, Bruce, Harold Grasmick, Charles Tittle, and Robert Bursik, 1993,
“Low Self-Control and Imprudent Behavior.” Journal of Quantitative Crimi-
nology 9:225–246.
Arbuthnot, Jack, Donald A. Gordon, and Gregory J. Jurkovic, 1987, “Person-
ality.” Pp. 139–183 in Herbert C. Quay (ed.), Handbook of Juvenile De-
linquency. New York: Wiley.
Baron, Stephen W., 2003, “Self-Control, Social Consequences, and Criminal
Behavior: Street Youth and the General Theory of Crime.” Journal ofResearch in Crime and Delinquency 40:403–425.
Bartusch, Dawn R. Jeglum, Donald R. Lynam, Terrie E. Moffitt, and Phil A.
Silva, 1997, “Is Age Important? Testing a General Versus a Developmen-
tal Theory of Antisocial Behavior.” Criminology 35:13–48.
Burt, Callie Harbin, Ronald L. Simons, and Leslie G. Simons, 2006, “A Lon-
gitudinal Test of the Effects of Parenting and the Stability of Self-Con-trol: Negative Evidence for the General Theory of Crime.” Criminology44:353–396.
Cauffman, Elizabeth, Laurence Steinberg, and Alex R. Piquero, 2005, “Psy-
chological, Neuropsychological, and Physiological Correlates of SeriousAntisocial Behavior in Adolescents: The Role of Self-Control.” Criminol-ogy43:133–175.
Cochran, John D., Peter B. Wood, and Bruce J. Arneklev, 1994, “Is the
Religiosity-Delinquency Relationship Spurious? A Test of Arousal andSocial Control Theories.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency31:92–123.

254 theories of delinquency
Creechan, James H., 1995, “A Test of the General Theory of Crime: Delin-
quency and School Dropouts.” Pp. 226–244 in James H. Creechan and
Robert A. Silverman (eds.), Canadian Delinquency. Scarborough, ON:
Prentice-Hall Canada.
Cullen, Francis T. and Robert Agnew (eds.), 2006, Criminological Theory:
Past to Present (Essential Readings), third edition. Los Angeles: Roxbury.
De Li, Spencer, 2003, “The Impacts of Self-Control and Social Bonds on Ju-
venile Delinquency in a National Sample of Midadolescents.” DeviantBehavior 25:351–373.
Doherty, Elaine, 2006, “Self-Control, Social Bonds, and Desistance: A Test of
Life-Course Interdependence.” Criminology 44:807–833.
Evans, T. David, Francis T. Cullen, Velmer S. Burton, Jr., R. Gregory
Dunaway, and Michael L. Benson, 1997, “The Social Consequence of
Self-Control: Testing the General Theory of Crime.” Criminology35:475–501.
Felson, Richard B. and Jeremy Staff, 2006, “Explaining the Academic Perfor-
mance-Delinquency Relationship.” Criminology 44:299–319.
Gibbs, John J., Dennis Giever, and Jamie S. Martin, 1998, “Parental Man-
agement and Self-Control: An Empirical Test of Gottfredson andHirschi’s General Theory.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delin-quency 35:40–70.
Gottfredson, Michael R., 2006, “The Empirical Status of Control Theory in
Criminology.” Pp. 77–100 in Francis T. Cullen, John Paul Wright, and
Kristie R. Bevins (eds)., Taking Stock: The Status of Criminological Theory,Advances in Criminological Theory, Vol. 15. New Brunswick, N.J.: Trans-
action.
Gottfredson, Michael R. and Travis Hirschi, 1990, A General Theory of Crime.
Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Grasmick, Harold G., Charles R. Tittle, Robert J. Bursik, Jr., and Bruce J.
Arneklev, 1993, “Testing the Core Empirical Implications of Gottfredson
and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime.” Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency 30:5–29.
Gutierrez, Filomin C. and Donald J. Shoemaker, 2008, “Self-Reported De-
linquency of High School Students in Metro Manila: Gender and SocialClass.” Youth & Society 40:55–85.
Huh, David, Jennifer Tristan, Emily Wade, and Eric Stice, 2006, “Does Prob-
lem Behavior Elicit Poor Parenting? A Prospective Study of AdolescentGirls.” Journal of Adolescent Research 21:185–204.
Jaffee, Sara R., Terrie E. Moffitt, Avshalom Caspi, and Alan Taylor, 2003,
“Life with (or without) Father: The Benefits of Living with Two Biological

control theories 255
Parents Depend on the Father’s Antisocial Behavior.” Child Development
74:109–126.
Jang, Sung Joon and Marvin D. Krohn, 1995, “Developmental Patterns
of Sex Differences in Delinquency among African American Adoles-cents: A Test of the Sex-Invariant Hypothesis,” Journal of Quantita-tive Criminology 11:195–222.
Katz, Rebecca S., 1999, “Building the Foundation for a Side-by-Side Explana-
tory Model: A General Theory of Crime, the Age-Graded Life-CourseTheory, and Attachment Theory.” Western Criminology Review 1: Online
(http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v 1n2/katz.html).
Kerper, Hazel B., 1972, Introduction to the Criminal Justice System. Saint
Paul, Minn.: West.
LaGrange, Teresa C. and Robert A. Silverman, 1999, “Low Self-Control and
Opportunity: Testing the General Theory of Crime as an Explanation forGender Differences in Delinquency.” Criminology 37:41–72.
Lawrence, Richard, 2007, School Crime and Juvenile justice, second edition.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Longshore, Douglas, Eunice Chang, and Nena Messina, 2005, “Self-Control
and Social Bonds: A Combined Control Perspective on Juvenile Offend-ing.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 21:419–437.
Longshore, Douglas, Judith A. Stein, and Susan Turner, 1998, “Reliability and
Validity of a Self-Control Measure: A Rejoinder.” Criminology 36:175–182.
Longshore, Douglas, Susan Turner, and Judith A. Stein, 1996, “Self-Control
in a Criminal Sample: An Examination of Construct Validity.” Criminol-ogy34:209–228.
Marenin, Otwin and Michael Resig, 1995, “A General Theory of Crime and
Patterns of Crime in Nigeria: An Exploration of Methodological Assump-tions.” Journal of Crime and Justice 23:501–518.
McGloin, Jean Marie and Lawrence O’Neil Shermer, 2009, “Self-Control and
Deviant Peer Network Structure.” Journal of Research in Crime & Delin-quency 46:35–72.
Mitchell, Ojmarrh and Doris Layton MacKenzie, 2006, “The Stability and
Resiliency of Self-Control in a Sample of Incarcerated Offenders.” Crimeand Delinquency 52:432–449.
Murray, Joseph and David P. Farrington, 2005, “Parental Imprisonment: Ef-
fect on Boys’ Antisocial Behaviour and Delinquency through the Life-Course.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 46:1269–1278.
Owens-Sabir, Mahasin C., 2007, The Effects of Race and Family Attachment
on Self-Esteem, Self-Control, and Delinquency. New York: LFB ScholarlyPublishing.

256 theories of delinquency
Phillips, Susan D., Alaattin Erkanli, Gordon P. Keeler, E. Jane Costello, and Adrian
Angold, 2006, “Disentangling the Risks: Parent Criminal Justice Involve-
ment and Children’s Exposure to Family Risks.” Criminology and Public
Policy 5:677–702.
Pratt, Travis C. and Francis T. Cullen, 2000, “The Empirical Status of
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime: A Meta-Analysis.”Criminology 38:931–964.
Quay, Herbert C., 1987, “Patterns of Delinquent Behavior.” Pp. 118–138 in
Herbert C. Quay (ed.), Handbook of Juvenile Delinquency. New York:Wiley.
Siennick, Sonja E. and Jeremy Staff, 2008, “Explaining the Educational Defi-
cits of Delinquent Youth.” Criminology 46:609–635.
Smith, Carolyn A. and David P. Farrington, 2004, “Continuities in Antisocial
Behavior and Parenting across Three Generations.” Journal of Child Psy-chology and Psychiatry 45:230–247.
Smith, Christian, with Melinda Lundquist Denton, 2005, Soul Searching; The
Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
Tangney, June P., Roy F. Baumeister, and Angie Luzio Boone, 2004, “High
Self-Control Predicts Good Adjustment, Less Pathology, Better Grades,and Interpersonal Success.” Journal of Personality 72:271–324.
Tittle, Charles R., David A. Ward, and Harold G. Grasmick, 2003, “Gender,
Age, and Crime/Deviance: A Challenge to Self-Control Theory.” Journalof Research in Crime and Delinquency 40:426–453.
Unnever, James D., Francis T. Cullen, and Robert Agnew, 2006, “Why is
‘Bad’ Parenting Criminogenic? Implications from Rival Theories.” YouthViolence and Juvenile Justice 4:3–33.
Vazsonyi, Alexander T., Lloyd E. Pickering, Marianne Junger, and Dick
Hessing, 2001, “An Empirical Test of A General Theory of Crime: A Four-
Nation Comparative Study of Self-Control and the Prediction of Devi-ance.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38:91–131.
Vazsonyi, Alexander T., Janice E. Clifford Wittekind, Lara M. Belliston, and
Timothy D. Van Loh, 2004, “Extending the General Theory of Crime to
‘The East’: Low Self-Control in Japanese Late Adolescents.” Journal ofQuantitative Criminology 20:189–216.
Vold, George B., Thomas J. Bernard, and Jeffrey B. Snipes, 2002, Theoretical
Criminology, fifth edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
White, Norman A. and Rolf Loeber, 2008, “Bullying and Special Education
as Predictors of Serous Delinquency.” Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency 45:380–397.

control theories 257
Winfree, L. Thomas, Jr., Terrance J. Taylor, Ni He, and Finn-Aage Esbensen,
2006, “Self-Control and Variability Over Time: Multivariate Results
Using a 5-Year, Multi-Site Panel of Youths.” Crime and Delinquency
52:253–286.
Wood, Peter B., Betty Pfefferbaum, and Bruce J. Arneklev, 1993, “Risk-Taking
and Self-Control: Social Psychological Correlates of Delinquency.” Jour-
nal of Crime and Justice 16:111–130.
Wright, John Paul, and Kevin M. Beaver, 2005, “Do Parents Matter in Cre-
ating Self-Control in Their Children? A Genetically Informed Test ofGottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Low Self-Control.” Crimi-nology 43:1169–1202.

This page intentionally left blank

9
Labeling Theory
259Historical Overview
The view that formal and informal societal reactions to delinquency
can influence the subsequent attitudes and behavior of delinquents
was recognized early in this century. Frederick Thrasher’s work onjuvenile gangs in Chicago ( 1927) was one of the first instances in which
the consequences of official labels of delinquency were recognizedas potentially negative. A few years later, Frank Tannenbaum ( 1938)
introduced the term “dramatization of evil,” in which he argued that
officially labeling someone as a delinquent can result in the person
becoming the very thing he is described as being. A few years after
Tannenbaum’s book was published, Edwin Lemert ( 1951) developed
the concepts of primary andsecondary deviance (to be defined be-
low), which became the central elements of the first systematic de-velopment of what has come to be known as labeling theory.
l The
theoretical “legacy” of this line of reasoning within sociology may betraced to the work of Charles Horton Cooley and George HerbertMead (Matsueda, 1992). Cooley is credited with the term “looking
glass” self ( 1964:184–185), and Mead is associated with the notion of
the “generalized other” (Strauss, 1964:216–228). Both of these con-
cepts stress the importance of social interactions in the development
of self–feelings and social identities. The conceptualization of self-
concept, per se, is often traced to the work of William James(Rosenberg, 1979).

260 theories of delinquency
Interest in labeling theory was dormant during the 1950s, since
numerous structural theories were introduced to explain delinquency,
particularly lower-class gang delinquency (see Chapter 6). Increasing
dissatisfaction with these, and other, theories and the growing aware-ness of middle-class delinquency, much of which was not officiallyrecorded, prompted many criminologists to return to the earlier views
of Thrasher, Tannenbaum, and Lemert. This renewed interest was
particularly spawned by Howard Becker’s analysis of deviance in the
early 1960s (later revised in 1973). Essentially, Becker proposed that
deviance was “created” by rule enforcers, who often acted with biasagainst the poor and powerless members of society. This idea, coupledwith the earlier notion of changing self-images, during the 1960s and
early 1970s became a central topic of much research and commentary
that focused on the subjects of crime, delinquency, and deviant acts.
Generic Assumptions
One of the basic assumptions of labeling theory is that initial acts of
delinquency are caused by a wide variety of factors. These factors,however, are relatively unimportant in the scheme of things, which
leads to a second assumption. That is, the primary factor in the repeti-
tion of delinquency is the fact of having been formally labeled as adelinquent. This assertion is accompanied by another idea, which may
be presented as a third assumption. Repeated acts of delinquency are
influenced by formal labels because such labels eventually alter a person’sself-image to the point where the person begins to identify himself as
a delinquent and act accordingly. Contrary to Reckless’ containment
Figure 12

labeling theory 261
theory, therefore, the view of the labeling perspective is that a nega-
tive, or delinquent, self-image follows the act of delinquency rather than
precedes delinquency. A fourth assumption of the labeling approach is
that the official application of the label of delinquent is dependent on
a host of criteria in addition to, or other than, the behavior itself, such
as the offender’s age, sex, race, and social class, as well as the organiza-tional norms of official agencies and departments. These assumptions
are diagrammed in Figure 12.
Of course, one does not have to be officially labeled criminal or
delinquent in order to label himself as such. Moreover, an official labelthat calls one delinquent can be applied irrespective of any nonconformist
act. For the most part, however, the advocates of the labeling approach
to delinquency have maintained that usually some type of nonconfor-
mity precedes an official label and that most self-labeling occurs after
official labeling.
key concepts The focus of this chapter is on the effects of labeling
on delinquent self-images and behavior rather than on the antecedentsof the labeling per se. Two concepts that are important in this regardareprimary andsecondary deviance, as introduced by Lemert ( 1951).
Primary Deviance This term refers to original acts of nonconformity
that may be caused by any of a number of factors. Primary deviance isgenerally considered to be undetected, or not recognized, as deviant
by others. Primary deviants have not adjusted their behavior to accom-
modate societal reactions to their deviance.Secondary Deviance On the other hand, this term refers to deviance
that is committed as the result of the problems of self-identity and socialinteraction, which are generated by the identification of the actor as adeviant. It is a new and often more serious form of deviance that is
committed, in addition to the original causes of the primary deviance.
Thus, secondary deviance is nonconformity created by the “pains oflabeling.”
Discussion Lemert’s ( 1951) discussion of the labeling, or “societal
reaction,” theory was applied to deviant behavior in general. Lemert
conceived of such behavior, which he termed “sociopathic,” as

262 theories of delinquency
meaningful only in the sense that it elicited an “effective” form of social
disapproval. Deviation is neither inherently good or bad; such
descriptions emanate only from the societal response to the behavior.
Lemert conceptualized the reaction process from two angles: the
members of society and the deviant. The members of society are con-sidered important in this process from the standpoint that it is they,
particularly agents of social control, who are responsible for the label-
ing in the first place.
The second component of the labeling process, the deviant, is
considered important because of the consequences the label of devi-ant produces for the labelee. It is with this aspect of the labeling pro-cess that Lemert introduced the concepts of primary and secondary
deviation, and on which he concentrated his discussion.
The term “process” becomes meaningful in Lemert’s discussion
with the view that secondary deviation is reached through a series ofsteps, beginning with primary deviation, progressing through a series
of penalties, to further deviance, then increased penalties, and eventu-ally an acceptance by the actor of a deviant status.
The process of moving from primary to secondary deviance is con-
ceived of as very complex. Numerous issues have been raised concern-ing the steps involved, and these issues have influenced considerable
discussion regarding the logical adequacy of labeling theory (see, for
example, Sagarin, 1975; Montanino, 1977; Gove, 1980a; and Dotter and
Roebuck, 1988).
One of the most central issues in the process of becoming a sec-
ondary deviant is the connection between behavior and the societal
reaction to it. While labeling theorists may not be overly concerned
with the basic causes of delinquency, those who advocate this theory
must be able to distinguish between behavior which is caused by some“primary” (pre-label) factor and that which is committed largely in re-
sponse to a label or an identification of one as a delinquent.
Howard Becker ( 1973) has attempted to deal with this question
by conceptualizing three situations of deviant (or delinquent) behav-ior: the pure deviant, the falsely accused deviant, and the secret devi-
ant. The pure deviant is a norm violator and is recognized as such byothers. Falsely accused deviants are those whose acts are actually con-
forming, but who are incorrectly thought by others to be deviant (the

labeling theory 263
victims of the “bum rap,” so to speak). In the secret deviant situation,
one violates a rule or a law but is not noticed or perceived by others ashaving committed an act of deviance.
It might appear that the term “secret deviance” is a contradiction
within the assumptions of labeling theory (Gibbs, 1966). If an act is not
to be considered deviant unless it is so recognized and labeled by oth-
ers, as Becker maintains, then how is secret deviance possible? Becker
addresses this question by suggesting that we call nonconformist be-havior that is not reacted to by members of society “rule-breaking”
behavior. Deviant behavior, however, is that which is so recognized in
society, and secret deviance is behavior that would very likely be la-beled as deviant if it were observed.
The use of a new term to answer a strong question does not always
resolve the problem. If a considerable amount of undetected delinquencyoccurs, for example, it could suggest that delinquency is as much in re-
sponse to primary factors as to the effects of labeling, if not more so. In
fact, research does suggest that a great deal of “hidden” delinquency exists.It is still possible, of course, to argue that repeated delinquency occurs
primarily because of the problems generated by official detection and
labeling. But the existence of a significant amount of hidden delinquency,or “rule-breaking” behavior, questions the extent to which delinquency
can be attributed to the effects of labeling (Hirschi, 1980).
Another issue with labeling theory is the matter of how the label
is handled by the labelee. Does one resist the negative effects of label-ing or become positively influenced by the label? Some people are able
to deny the “deviant” implications that the judgments of others maydenote. In addition, it is possible, some may say even likely, that being
labeled a delinquent would lead to reformed behavior—the juvenile
would decide to “mend his ways” to avoid further problems and ad-justments occasioned by a label (Thorsell and Klemke, 1972; Becker,
1973). The list of possibilities is lengthy and demonstrates again the
complexities of the theory.
The consideration of the labelee’s reactions to his identification as
a deviant leads many to associate labeling theory with an interactionistperspective (Becker, 1973; Lemert, 1974; Sagarin, 1975); that is, labeling
theory attempts to account for the mutual effects of the actor and his
audience. Thus, the theory is concerned not only with what the actor

264 theories of delinquency
and reactor do, but with how each one’s actions affect the behavior of
the other.
In addition to conceptualizing deviant behavior in terms of per-
sonal interaction, some commentators on labeling theory have notedthe importance of groups and associations in the actor’s acceptanceof societal reactions to his behavior. Becker, for example, argues that
a “final step in the career of a deviant” is the identification with an
“organized deviant group” (pp. 37–39). Others (Sagarin, 1969; Trice
and Roman, 1970) have also acknowledged the influence that social
groups with a deviant label may have on one’s accepting a personallabel of deviance. These authors have suggested that group supportof a labeled deviant may either nudge him further into an identity as
a deviant or serve as a catalyst for a transformation from an unaccept-
able role, in society’s eyes, to a more positive social status. An ex-ample of the latter situation would be an alcohol abuser who joins
Alcoholics Anonymous and pronounces himself an alcoholic in or-
der to handle the problem (Trice and Roman, 1970).
Evaluation Despite numerous debates and discussions, several have
argued that there are essentially two basic issues with which labelingtheory is concerned: ( 1) the development and enforcement of rules
and laws, and ( 2) the effects of labeling one a delinquent in terms of
one’s subsequent self-concept or identity and behavior (Schur, 1971;
Gove, 1980b; Kitsuse, 1980). The first issue concerns the various
influences that shape society’s laws and the manner in which they areenforced. With respect to the study of delinquency, these questionshave typically been addressed to the demographic characteristics of the
juvenile (for example, age, sex, race, or social class), the organizational
climate of social control agencies (such as police departments andjuvenile courts), and the interaction between juveniles and agents of
social control (police, judges, probation officers, and so on). Some
contend that this issue has become a dominant area of concern incriminology, but that it has become associated with conflict theory,
particularly neo-Marxist, or radical theory (Hirschi, 1980). Because the
question of discrimination against minorities is so important, its evaluation
is placed in the following chapter, which addresses the radical theory
of criminality.

labeling theory 265
The second basic issue of labeling theory, the consequences of
labeling on one’s self-image and behavior, has received considerable
attention in the literature and is definitely accessible to evaluation. It is
recognized that concentrating on self-concepts and attitudes and vis-
ible behavior does not do full justice to the complexities of labelingtheory and to the process of moving from primary to secondary devi-
ance or of becoming enmeshed in a life of criminality, a “career” devi-
ant (Becker, 1973). A systematic assessment of these factors, however,
will provide some information concerning the validity of labeling theory.
Labeling and Self-Concept The relationship between a formal de-
linquency label and consequent identity problems has been analyzedthrough both qualitative and quantitative research problems. Qualita-
tively, the connection between labeling a juvenile a delinquent and
the development of a delinquent identity, or antiauthority attitudes,has been established by examinations of the court processing of juve-
niles (Emerson, 1969; Cicourel, 1976) as well as observations of juve-
nile gangs (Werthman, 1970). Thrasher and Tannenbaum also qualita-
tively assessed the connection between self-concept and formally beinglabeled, or “tagged,” as a delinquent. In addition, Matza’s view that
delinquents develop a cynical and disrespectful attitude toward thepolice and juvenile courts was based essentially on qualitative assess-
ments of juvenile reactions (see Chapter 7).
A quasi-experimental participant observation study of delinquency
in a small town reported a connection between official (and unoffi-cial) labeling and delinquent self-images. William Chambliss ( 1973)
conducted a longitudinal study of two juvenile gangs—eight children
of respectable, upper-middle-class families who formed a gang called
the “Saints” and six youths from lower-class families who belonged to
a gang called the “Roughnecks.”
Although none of the Saints had ever been arrested, their observed
involvement in delinquency was as thorough (although not for violentoffenses) as the Roughnecks, who had been arrested repeatedly. Fur-thermore, the overall reputation of the Saints, in the community and
among school officials, was generally good. The acknowledged trans-
gressions of the Saints were often passed off as “pranks” and mischie-vousness to be expected of boys. The Roughnecks, on the other hand,
were viewed by the police, school officials, and other members of the

266 theories of delinquency
community as headed for “trouble,” a “bad bunch of boys” (Chambliss,
1973:27–28).
More to the point of this discussion, Chambliss’ observations
indicated that the juveniles generally adopted, or lived up to, theirreputations in the community. The Saints never saw themselves asdelinquents. Instead, they saw themselves as merely out to have a good
time, to raise a little hell, as it were, all of which never really hurt
anyone. The Roughnecks, however, made their delinquency quitevisible to the public and openly flouted their hostility toward the
respectable members of the community. According to Chambliss,
members of the Roughnecks not only viewed themselves as delin-quents, but they also sought out as friends and associates other juve-
niles with similar self-concepts.
It would appear from qualitative analyses that official labels do
produce, or at least contribute to, a delinquent self-image. More em-pirical or quantitative measures of self-concept, however, have pro-
vided only mixed support for the contention that a formal delinquencylabel produces a delinquent identity.
Jack Foster and his colleagues ( 1972), for example, interviewed
196 male youths who had either been arrested or referred to juvenile
court. The juveniles were interviewed in their homes within 20 days
after their arrest or court appearance. Basically, the boys reported nochanges in personal relationships or parental attitudes toward them asa result of their involvement with the law. In addition, over 90 per-
cent of the boys felt no difficulties would develop with respect tofinishing school as a result of their official records of delinquency.About 40 percent of the boys felt that their chances of getting a suit-
able job might have been hurt by their legal involvements, but thisfeeling seemed more pronounced among those boys who had beensent to court. Overall, the investigators concluded that the labeled
youths either did not feel any great liabilities as a result of their labels
or were able to minimize, in their own minds, the possible effects ofsuch labels because of their age, generally good behavior, and the current
practice of keeping juvenile records confidential in the United States.
While the Foster study did not specifically address the issue of self-
concept, the results clearly lent no support to the contention that asso-ciations and identities are affected by a formal label of delinquency (see

labeling theory 267
also, Giordano, 1976). Other research has, however, concluded that a
formal delinquency label has no direct effect on self-concept. Leonard
Gibbs ( 1974) compared the delinquent images and levels of self-esteem
of a sample of 21 juveniles who had been arrested and subsequently
referred to juvenile court for auto theft with a sample of 56 officially
nondelinquent high school students. He found that the official delin-
quents looked on themselves as more delinquent after an arrest than after
a court appearance. At both stages of processing, however, the official
delinquents viewed themselves as more delinquent than the non-
delinquents. With respect to self-esteem, Gibbs reported that the lev-
els were higher after court processing, but not after arrest. Altogether,in five of eight comparisons the results ran counter to the assumptions
of the labeling perspective.
In another comparative study, John Hepburn ( 1977) analyzed the
self-concepts and attitudes of 105 nondelinquent males versus 96 offi-
cially delinquent (arrested) males. Hepburn found that the delinquents,
compared to the nondelinquents, had greater definitions of themselvesas delinquents and greater commitment to future delinquency and to
delinquent others, but lower self-concepts and less respect for the po-
lice. However, when the effects of several variables were considered si-multaneously, such as socioeconomic status and self-reported delinquency,
it was found that an arrest record had no direct effect on self-concept or
delinquent identification. Hepburn concluded that whatever associationmay exist between a formal label of delinquency and a negative or low
self-concept is spurious, in that self-image is best explained by the over-
all situation of a juvenile’s life, including his self-reported delinquency.
In spite of the somewhat negative impression one may have after a
review of this literature, in terms of the validity of the labeling perspec-tive, there have been some conclusions in support of labeling, particu-larly with respect to certain categories of juveniles ( Jensen, 1972; Ageton
and Elliott, 1974). Using the same data base as in Travis Hirschi’s study,
Gary Jensen ( 1972) found that among adolescent males official delin-
quency (as measured by police records) was much more strongly related
to having a delinquent self-concept among whites than among African-
Americans. Furthermore, the lack of a relationship among African-Ameri-cans between an official label and a delinquent self-concept persisted
among all social class levels. Among African-Americans, Jensen concludes,

268 theories of delinquency
an official label of delinquency might not carry much significance for a
delinquent identity either because such labels are fairly common or be-cause the label is applied by “outsiders” (see also, Gould, 1969).
On the assumption that a delinquent identity does not always mean
a low self-esteem, Jensen also compared self-esteem with official de-linquency, by race. This analysis showed no relationship at all, for ei-
ther blacks or whites. However, the relationship did vary by social class
among African-Americans. It was positive (the greater the official de-linquency, the higher the self-esteem) among lower-class African-
Americans but negative among middle- and upper-middle-class
African-Americans. In this instance, Jensen argues, a delinquency labelcarries no negative value for lower-class blacks but is a stereotype that
middle-class minorities wish to avoid or renounce.
Suzanne Ageton and Delbert Elliott ( 1974) extended Jensen’s analy-
sis by examining the relationship between official delinquency (policecontact) and delinquent orientation over a six-year time period (the
same data base used in the Elliott and Voss study discussed earlier). Theauthors concluded that a greater change toward a delinquency orien-
tation, subsequent to police contact, occurred among males, both lower-
and upper-class youths (which negated the effect of social class gener-ally), and whites. Furthermore, Ageton and Elliott concluded that the
mostsignificant factor in the development of a delinquent orientation
was police contact, as opposed to sex, class, and race. Even this con-
clusion must be tempered by the finding that the relationship between
police contact and delinquent orientation, although statistically signifi-
cant, was rather low.
In an effort to clarify the seeming contradictions of three earlier stud-
ies, Jensen ( 1980) reaffirmed his conclusion, and that of Ageton and Elliott,
that official labels have more impact on the self-images and attitudes ofthose less heavily involved in delinquency. It may be that juveniles who
have had previous contact with juvenile justice officials have come to
terms with whatever effect such contact has upon their self-images. Futurearrests or court appearances are thus unlikely to have a significant impact
on a juvenile’s self-concept, especially in comparison with youth who
are arrested or sent to court for the first time.
Studies of those released from juvenile reformatories also report
inconsistent findings relative to the effects of incarceration on

labeling theory 269
self-concepts and attitudes. There is some evidence that suggests that
atreatment -oriented institution is related to the development of positive
self-images, while custody -oriented facilities tend to foster negative self-
images and cynical attitudes toward staff members and authority fig-ures in general (Street et al., 1966). Other studies, however, have not
consistently documented any pronounced attitudinal or identity changes
among youth as a result of confinement in juvenile detention centers
or reformatories (Eynon and Simpson, 1965; O’Connor, 1970; Gibbons
and Krohn, 1986), although the length of confinement in these insti-
tutions is, on average, less than one year (Children in Custody, 1985:6).
In summary, it is true that labeled delinquents do have negative or
delinquent self-concepts (see Chapter 8) and that qualitative analyses
suggest that such self-images are the product of official labeling. Quan-titative analyses, however, have failed to confirm consistently the exist-ence of measurable changes in identity or attitude as a result of official
labeling, at any stage of processing. These studies do suggest, though,
that the effects of official labeling that do exist are strongest among thoseleast involved in delinquent activity (see also, Lipsitt, 1968; Snyder, 1971;
Mahoney, 1974; Jensen and Rojek, 1992).
The studies thus far reported have not lent themselves to a careful
comparison of the effects of official labeling on juveniles because they
have been unable to take a cohort of youths and follow them up for
a considerable period of time, including those years before they were
labeled. To varying degrees, research has approximated this ideal de-
sign. Nonetheless, most studies have allowed for a “labeling effect” to
appear more often than would a thorough longitudinal design. Giventhese circumstances, a truly inconsistent set of findings casts consider-
able doubt on the significance of formal labels on the identities and
attitudes of juveniles.
Labeling and Delinquent Behavior In Chapter 7, it was noted that a
common finding in the literature on juvenile delinquency is the ten-dency for miscreant juveniles to become more conformist with age, to“mature out” of delinquency. Studies of juvenile arrests and referrals
to juvenile court indicate that the peak age of delinquency is around
16 (Wolfgang et al., 1972; Smith et al., 1980). Marvin Wolfgang and co-
workers ( 1972), for example, studied the arrest records of over 10,000
males born in 1945 who lived in Philadelphia between their 10th and

270 theories of delinquency
18th birthdays (a “cohort” study). They noted that nearly all arrest rates,
for both whites and minorities, peaked at age 16 for both serious and
nonserious offenses (see also, Tracy et al., 1990).
On the surface, it would appear that being arrested or sent to court
would have only limited behavioral effects on delinquency, inasmuch as
most official delinquents mature out of their law-breaking activities around
the age of 16. The effects of an official label might be greatest, however,
if applied early in a child’s life. This view is consistent with the previous
observation that official labeling is harsher among less-delinquent youth.
It is also in agreement with the often-noted tendency for the rate of
official delinquency to be inversely related to the age of the first officialrecord of delinquency (Wolfgang et al., 1972; Tracy et al., 1990).
Of course, it is possible to argue, in support of labeling theory,
that a small proportion of juveniles continue to violate the law inresponse to the problems of having a record of delinquency.
Wolfgang’s cohort study provides some support for this contention.
Whereas half of the boys with an arrest record had been arrested onlyonce, and many two or three times, a small group of “chronic of-
fenders,” defined as youths who had five arrests or more, was iden-
tified. While these boys represented only 18 percent of all those
arrested, they accounted for over half of all the arrests (Wolfgang
et al., 1972; see also, Shannon, 1982; Tracy et al., 1990). Attempts to
connect the chronic offenders specifically with official labeling, how-
ever, proved inconclusive. An analysis of another cohort study, gath-
ered from police records in Racine, Wisconsin, also concludes that
arresting youth does not lead to the prevention of future arrests ofthese juveniles (Smith and Gartin, 1989). However, this study did
uncover possible labeling effects when the official reactions to crimi-nality included more severe actions, such as incarceration (p. 103).
Nonetheless, the authors note that the true effects of arrests, and other
punitive responses to offending behavior, are difficult to assess when
examining official records because “The inherent problem is that notall future offenses result in detection” (p. 102).
Additional research on the topic has yielded conflicting results.
Some have found that juveniles who have been sent to court have lowerrates of subsequent delinquency than those handled less formally
(McEachern, 1968). Others have found that juveniles referred to court

labeling theory 271
have higher subsequent rates of delinquency than others (Meade, 1974).
Studies of those released from juvenile institutions indicate that about
half (particularly males) violate parole or are referred to court within 12
to15 months (Gibbons and Krohn 1986; Ohlin et al., n.d.). The rates
for females, however, tend to be lower. These findings suggest that
the behavioral effects of institutionalization are not pronounced, in any
direction, at least for males.
Part of the reason for these inconsistent results is the fact that de-
linquency is indeed related to a host of factors other than official la-bels. In addition, as long as delinquent behavior is measured in terms
of official records, the results are likely to be influenced by a self-ful-filling prophecy—in which the label generates a suspicion of future
misdeeds, which leads to a higher probability of official processing, which
affirms the original label, and so on.
Another consideration with respect to labeling is the subject of
waiver, or transfer, of cases from juvenile court to criminal court. Pre-sumably, the goal of such transfers is to punish youth in the criminalsystem, youth who might otherwise avoid punitive consequences in
the juvenile system. Aside from the merits of such an assumption (White-
head and Lab, 1999:221–222), another aspect of transfers is the impact
such a decision has on the future behavior of those youth transferred
to the criminal court system. Donna Bishop and colleagues studied the
effect of transfers in Florida, using a comparative and longitudinal re-search design (Bishop et al., 1996). Over 2700 transferred youth were
studied, and compared with a matched sample (in terms of criminalhistory and offense, age, and gender) of over 2700 juveniles whose cases
were not waived to criminal court. Upon studying the records of these
youth from 1987 through 1988, Bishop et al. concluded that those who
were waived to criminal court were more delinquent than the
nontransfers (pp. 179–183). The researchers speculated the increased
recidivism (return to crime or delinquency) among the transferred youth
might have been caused by feelings of unfair treatment by authorities(labeling?), but this conclusion can only be speculative, since the juve-
niles were not interviewed. A longer follow-up analysis indicated that
rates of reoffending among both groups became more similar (Winneret al., 1997 ), but, still, the earlier impact of higher recidivism among the
transferred youth lends support to labeling theory.

272 theories of delinquency
One way to offset the influences of the self-fulfilling prophecy is
to examine the association between labeling and self-report delin-
quency. Such studies have often noted a small but direct relationship
between official records of delinquency and the frequency or serious-
ness of self-reported delinquency (Williams and Gold, 1972; Elliott and
Ageton, 1980; Hindelang et al., 1981). To some extent, therefore, those
who are caught and labeled as delinquent are indeed already delin-quent, by their own admission. The label may thus be as much a reac-tion to delinquent behavior as it is a cause of delinquency. The difficulty
with accepting such assessments is, again, the fact that they are not based
on longitudinal investigations that measure behavior before a label has
been applied. Moreover, specific attempts to compare the subsequent
self-reported delinquency of those who have been labeled delinquent
versus those who have not been so labeled have yielded inconclusiveresults ( Jensen and Rojek, 1992).
The conclusion with respect to the behavioral effects of labeling
is essentially the same as with the attitudinal effects of labeling. That is,what results may develop are more likely to occur among originally
less delinquent youth and are more likely if the label is applied earlier
in life. Otherwise, a strong connection between officially labeling ajuvenile a delinquent and subsequent delinquent behavior is
unsubstantiated.
It is possible that the effects of labeling one a delinquent would
not be noticeable over the short term, but would be more pronouncedwith repeated contacts with juvenile justice authorities over time (Klein,
1974; Thornton et al., 1982). In fact, this situation appears to be the
contention of some of the earlier developers of labeling theory, such
as Lemert and Becker. As indicated earlier, research that compares be-
havioral and attitudinal differences among juveniles who have reachedvarious stages of juvenile justice processing would cast doubt on such
a conclusion. Again, however, the issue would be better addressed with
longitudinal research or by studying groups of youngsters over an ex-tended period of time.
2
Some efforts to assess self-reported attitudinal and behavioral con-
sequences of labeling, both formal and informal, among youth in thegeneral population have failed to establish clear support for the predictions
of labeling theory (Thomas and Bishop, 1984; Ray and Downs, 1986).

labeling theory 273
While both studies are termed longitudinal, they only cover a time span
of one year. The study by Ray and Downs uses a small sample size (N =188) and addresses only drug offenses. The results of this study, how-
ever, do report some evidence of secondary deviance among the malesin the sample. The research by Thomas and Bishop is unable to separatethe ordering of follow-up indications of delinquency and reported so-
cietal responses to previous reports of delinquent behavior.
Other longitudinal studies of self-reported delinquency, however,
do provide evidence in support of labeling theory. Kaplan and associ-ates, for example, have analyzed the impact of negative labeling in their
longitudinal data concerning the integrated model of delinquency (seeChapter 8). The results of these analyses indicate that negative reactions
from others are associated with feelings of self-rejection, dispositionstoward deviance, associations with deviant peers, and self-reported de-linquent and drug-use behavior (Kaplan and Johnson, 1991; Kaplan and
Fukurai, 1992). In these analyses, negative reactions (or sanctions) include
school expulsion or other punishments, run-ins with authority figures,and psychological or psychiatric referrals. While the data do not clearly
demonstrate that self-rejection is a direct consequence of these sanc-
tions, the strength of the statistical relationships and the temporal order-ing of the variables in the explanatory model suggest that this is the case.
Matsueda ( 1992) offers additional support for the impact of nega-
tive sanctions on self-appraisals and subsequent delinquency, also us-ing data from a longitudinal self-report study of delinquency (the
National Youth Survey). In Matsueda’s analysis, the focus is on nega-
tive labeling from parents . One of the conclusions is that such labels are
strongly connected with negative self-appraisals and with delinquency,
particularly among those youth who report high levels of delinquency.
These associations occur despite the rather modest measurement ofparental labels (essentially asking parents to agree or disagree with state-
ments concerning whether their child is well liked, distressed, is likely
to be a success, or gets into trouble). While these results offer somesupport for labeling theory, Matsueda also suggests that delinquency
among youth may lead to parental alienation, which leads to more
delinquent behavior. Or a criminal parent may see a child as antisocialor as a trouble-maker, and withhold affection, thereby contributing to
future delinquency by the youth. Both of these scenarios, moreover,

274 theories of delinquency
could occur without the child reevaluating his or her self-image, or
the reactions of others (p. 1604), and both suggest a weakened social
bond between parent and child as an important contributing factor in
the explanation of delinquency (see also, Triplett and Jarjoura, 1994).
Additional analyses of the National Youth Survey data by Heimer
and Matsueda ( 1994) conclude that the effects of labeling, by parents,
teachers, and others, are transformed into additional acts of crime and
delinquency by youth taking the roles of deviant actors; that is, bybehaving in accordance with the presumed role(s) associated with a
label of deviant or delinquent. These role-taking behaviors, or “reflected
appraisals,” furthermore, may be influenced by gender identities ofyouth. In particular, Bartusch and Matsueda ( 1996) conclude that the
negative impact of informal labels is more pronounced among malesthan among females, particularly for males who identify with a malegender. Perhaps this is another way of expressing the adage, “boys will
be boys.” In this scenario, however, boys who think of themselves as
boys will act as they feel boys should act, especially when parents andother significant others around them label them as delinquent or
troublemakers.
Another longitudinal study using an Ohio sample of adolescents
followed into adulthood also addresses some of the issues of labelingtheory (Lanctot et al., 2007). This research documents that both institu-
tionalization and self-reported crime and delinquency affect one’s life
chances, including the risk of continued criminal behavior into adult-
hood. Furthermore, these negative consequences are experienced by
both males and females. In many instances, difficulties in finding andkeeping jobs and life partners are compounded by problems in social
skills, and these problems seem more pronounced among those who
have been institutionalized. While this study is not able to clearly dis-entangle the specific impact of behavioral patterns before and after in-
stitutionalization on subsequent criminality and life chances in adulthood,
its methodology and findings shed informative light on the issue. Inaddition, the conclusions of this study shed light on the dynamics of a
life-course perspective; this is discussed in more detail in Chapter 12.
The tendency for negative labels to lead to increased delinquent
behavior may also be influenced by associations with delinquent peers(Adams, 1996), which is the heart of differential association theory

labeling theory 275
(Chapter 7). In this case, however, the causal arrow points to the im-
pact of informal labels on one’s peer associations, which then affect
delinquency. In addition, a longitudinal study of juveniles in Roches-
ter, New York (see also, Chapter 12) concluded that official process-
ing of juveniles was associated with increased delinquency, particularly
juvenile crimes, especially if the labeled youth was connected with adeviant peer network, and if the labeling occurred during adolescence
(Bernburg et al., 2006).
Research on labeling theory continues to provide support for some
of its tenets, including a finding that legal sanctions (as reported byrespondents) affect delinquency more than do parenting behaviors(Stewart et al., 2002). The impact of legal labels on delinquency, how-
ever, seems to have class connotations. Some research suggests thatformal sanctions have less impact on lower-class youth than on middle-class juveniles, but this line of inquiry is still open to debate and fur-
ther research (Hannon, 2003).
Summary
The significance of labeling juveniles as delinquent appears to be ques-
tionable, as far as subsequent identities and behavior are concerned.
The rapid rise in the popularity of labeling theory during the 1960s
perhaps reflects more the dissatisfaction among social scientists and crimi-
nologists with extant explanations of deviance and criminality than the
validity of the labeling perspective’s assumptions. In this period, assump-tions were accepted without careful empirical examination. Subsequent
analyses, however, have cast doubt on the validity of many of those
assumptions.
In retrospect, the view that a label creates behavior appears over-
simplified. While it is true that many of the assumptions of the morepopular theories of delinquency are not empirically supported, the al-ternate view proposed by labeling theorists is also not supported.
The assumptions of the labeling perspective, however, are not
totally indefensible. Several studies, both qualitative and quantitative,suggest the existence of an effect of official labels on delinquent iden-
tities and behavior. In addition, research indicates a relatively strong

276 theories of delinquency
effect of official labels among those less committed to antisocial be-
havior at the time the label was applied, and this would be truer ofjuveniles than of adult criminals. Furthermore, most of these condi-
tions have been assessed relative to official labels. Had unofficial labels
been more thoroughly examined, it is possible that the changes would
have been more pronounced (see also, Mahoney, 1974; Paternoster
and Iovanni, 1989). Some of the more recent research seems to be
addressing the impact of these informal labels, and the results are en-couraging for the proponents of labeling theory. Even these studies,
however, include the negative impact of labeling along with other,
often more important, connecting variables in the explanation ofdelinquency (see also, Rosenbaum, 1989).
The arguments of labeling theorists have provided important is-
sues and views concerning the understanding of delinquency. Thesomewhat negative overall assessment of this theory, however, stems
primarily from the inconsistent results that have been derived from
research so designed as to reveal even weak labeling effects. Althoughsuch effects obviously occur, they are neither as inevitable nor as
dramatic as the assumptions of the theory would predict.
3
Notes
1. To some, the views of this approach are not accepted as a “theory” but,
instead, as a perspective or an orientation. Using the definition of theory given
in Chapter 1, however, the assumptions of “labeling” are within the realm of
a theory and thus to call this approach a theory is appropriate for the purposesof this book.
2. The obverse of labeling theory would lead one to expect lower recidivism
rates among offenders who are reintegrated into the community, rather than pushedaway from interactions with “conformists.” Braithwaite argues that shaming canbe an important part of successful rehabilitative efforts, if incorporated into an overalltheme of reintegration ( 1989). Braithwaite and Mugford ( 1994) offer support for
this conceptualization in an observational analysis of “reintegrative ceremonies”for juvenile offenders in Australia and New Zealand. However, other investiga-tions and analyses raise issues and considerations, including societal and judicialacceptance of shaming, which question the potential efficacy of reintegrative ef-forts, in Western nations or in some Asian societies, such as Hong Kong (Bazemore,
1998; Schiff, 1998; Vagg, 1998). Discussions of several issues concerning

labeling theory 277
reintegrative shaming, and the overall concept of restorative justice, are found
in McLaughlin et al. ( 2003) and Braithwaite et al. ( 2006).
3. A discussion of many of the issues and research directions concerning la-
beling theory is found in Wellford and Triplett ( 1993).
References
Adams, Mike S., 1996, “Labeling and Differential Association: Towards a
General Social Learning Theory of Crime and Deviance.” American Jour-
nal of Criminal Justice 20:147–164.
Ageton, Suzanne, and Delbert Elliott, 1974, “The Effects of Legal Processing
on Self-Concept.” Social Problems 22:87–100.
Bartusch, Dawn Jeglum and Ross L. Matsueda, 1996, “Gender, Reflected
Appraisals and Labeling: A Cross Groups Test of an Interactionist Theoryof Delinquency.” Social Forces 75:145–177.
Bazemore, Gordon, 1998, “Crime, Victims and Restorative Justice in Juve-
nile Courts: Judges as Obstacle or Leader?” Western Criminology Review1: Online (http: //wcr.sonoma.edu/v 1n1/bazemore.html).
Becker, Howard S., 1973, Outsiders. New York: Free Press. First published
in1963.
Bernburg, Jon Gunnar, Marvin D. Krohn, and Craig J. Rivera, 2006, “Official
Labeling, Criminal Embeddedness, and Subsequent Delinquency.” Jour-nal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 43 :67–88.
Bishop, Donna M., Charles E. Frazier, Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, and Lawrence
Winner, 1996, “The Transfer of Juveniles to Criminal Court: Does It Make
a Difference?” Crime & Delinquency 42:171–191.
Braithwaite, John, 1989, Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Braithwaite, John, Eliza Ahmed, and Valerie Braithwaite, 2006, “Shame, Re-
storative Justice, and Crime.” Pp. 397–417 in Francis T. Cullen, John Paul
Wright, and Kristie R. Blevins (eds.), Taking Stock: The Status of Crimino-logical Theory, Advances in Criminological Theory, Vol. 15. New Brunswick,
N.J.: Transaction.
Braithwaite, John and Stephen Mugford, 1994, “Conditions of Successful
Reintegration Ceremonies.” British Journal of Criminology 34:139–171.
Chambliss, William, 1973, “The Saints and the Roughnecks.” Society 11:24–31.
Children in Custody, 1985. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Cicourel, Aaron, 1976, The Social Organization of Juvenile Justice, second
edition. New York: Wiley.

278 theories of delinquency
Cooley, Charles Horton, 1964, Human Nature and the Social Order.
New York: Schocken. First published in 1902.
Dotter, Daniel L. and Julian B. Roebuck, 1988, “The Labeling Approach Re-
examined: Interactionism and the Components of Deviance.” Deviant
Behavior 9:19–32.
Elliott, Delbert S. and Suzanne S. Ageton, 1980, “Reconciling Race and Class
Differences in Self-Reported and Official Estimates of Delinquency.”American Sociological Review 45:95–110.
Emerson, Robert M., 1969, Judging Delinquents. Chicago: Aldine.
Eynon, Thomas G. and Jon E. Simpson, 1965, “The Boy’s Perception of Himself
in a State Training School for Delinquents.” Social Service Review 39:31–37.
Foster, Jack D., Simon Dinitz, and Walter C. Reckless, 1972, “Perceptions
of Stigma Following Public Intervention for Delinquent Behavior.” SocialProblems 20:202–209.
Gibbons, Don C. and Marvin D. Krohn, 1986, Delinquent Behavior, fourth
edition. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Gibbs, Jack P., 1966, “Conceptions of Deviant Behavior: The Old and the
New.” Pacific Sociological Review 9:9–14.
Gibbs, Leonard, E., 1974, “Effects of Juvenile Legal Procedures on Juvenile
Offenders’ Self-Attitudes.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency11:51–55.
Giordano, Peggy C., 1976, “The Sense of Injustice? An Analysis of Juveniles’
Reactions to the Justice System.” Criminology 14:93–112.
Gould, Leroy C., 1969, “Who Defines Delinquency? A Comparison of Self-
Reported and Officially Reported Indices of Delinquency for Three RacialGroups.” Social Problems 16:325–336.
Gove, Walter R. (ed.), 1980a, The Labeling of Deviance, second edition.
Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
———, 1980b, “The Labeling Perspective: An Overview.” Pp. 9–26 in Walter
R. Gove (ed.), q.v.
Hannon, Lance, 2003, “Poverty, Delinquency, and Educational Attainment:
Cumulative Disadvantage or Disadvantage Saturation?” Sociological In-quiry 73:575–594.
Heimer, Karen and Ross L. Matsueda, 1994, “Role-Taking, Role Commit-
ment, and Delinquency: A Theory of Differential Social Control.” Ameri-can Sociological Review 59:365–390.
Hepburn, John R., 1977, “The Impact of Police Intervention upon Juvenile
Delinquents.” Criminology 15:235–262.
Hindelang, Michael, Travis Hirschi, and Joseph G. Weis, 1981, Measuring
Delinquency. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.

labeling theory 279
Hirschi, Travis, 1980, “Labeling Theory and Juvenile Delinquency: An As-
sessment of the Evidence: Postscript.” Pp. 271–302 in Walter R. Gove
(ed.), q.v.
Jensen, Gary F., 1972, “Delinquency and Adolescent Self-Conceptions: A Study
of the Personal Relevance of Infraction.” Social Problems 20:84–103.
———, 1980, “Labeling and Identity: Toward a Reconciliation of Divergent
Findings.” Criminology 18:121–129.
Jensen, Gary F. and Dean G. Rojek, 1992, Delinquency and Youth Crime,
second edition. Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland.
Kaplan, Howard B. and Hiroshi Fukurai, 1992, “Negative Social Sanctions,
Self-Rejection, and Drug Use.” Youth & Society 23:275–298.
Kaplan, Howard B. and Robert J. Johnson, 1991, “Negative Social Sanctions
and Juvenile Delinquency: Effects of Labeling in a Model of Deviant
Behavior.” Social Science Quarterly 72:98–122.
Kitsuse, John I., 1980, “The ‘New Conception of Deviance’ and Its Critics.”
Pp.381–392 in Walter R. Gove (ed.), q.v.
Klein, Malcolm W., 1974, “Labeling, Deterrence, and Recidivism: A Study of
Police Dispositions of Juvenile Offenders.” Social Problems 22:292–303.
Lanctot, Nadine, Stephen A. Cernkovich, and Peggy Giordano, 2007, “De-
linquent Behavior, Official Delinquency, and Gender: Consequences forAdulthood Functioning and Well Being.” Criminology 45:131–157.
Lemert, Edwin M., 1951, Social Pathology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
———, 1974, “Beyond Mead: The Societal Reaction to Deviance.” Social
Problems 21:457–468.
Lipsitt, Paul, 1968, “The Juvenile Offender’s Perception.” Crime & De-
linquency 14:49–62.
Mahoney, Anne R., 1974, “The Effect of Labeling upon Youths in the Juve-
nile Justice System: A Review of the Evidence.” Law & Society Review8:583–614.
Matsueda, Ross L., 1992, “Reflected Appraisals, Parental Labeling, and De-
linquency: Specifying a Symbolic Interactionist Theory.” American Jour-nal of Sociology 97:1577–1611.
McEachern, A. W. (ed.), 1968, “The Juvenile Probation System: Simula-
tion for Research and Decision-Making.” American Behavioral Scien-tist11:1–48.
Mclaughlin, Eugene, Rose Fergusson, Gordon Hughes, and Louise
Westmarland (editors), 2003, Restorative Justice: Critical Issues. Thou-
sand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, in association with the Open University.
Meade, Anthony C., 1974, “The Labeling Approach to Delinquency: State of
the Theory as a Function of Method.” Social Forces 53:83–91.

280 theories of delinquency
Montanino, Fred, 1977, “Directions in the Study of Deviance: A Bibliographic
Essay, 1960–1977.” Pp. 277–304 in Edward Sagarin (ed.), Deviance and
Social Change. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
O’Connor, Gerald G., 1970, “The Impact of Initial Detention upon Male De-
linquents.” Social Problems 18:194–199.
Ohlin, Lloyd E., Alden D. Miller, and Robert B. Coates, n.d., Juvenile
Correctional Reform in Massachusetts. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gov-
ernment Printing Office.
Paternoster, Raymond and LeeAnn Iovanni, 1989, “The Labeling Perspective
and Delinquency: An Elaboration of the Theory and Assessment of theEvidence.” Justice Quarterly 6:359–394.
Ray, Melvin C. and William R. Downs, 1986, “An Empirical Test of La-
beling Theory Using Longitudinal Data.” Journal of Research in Crimeand Delinquency 23:169–194.
Rosenbaum, Jill Leslie, 1989, “Family Dysfunction and Female Delinquency.”
Crime & Delinquency 35:31–44.
Rosenberg, Morris, 1979, Conceiving the Self. New York: Basic Books.
Sagarin, Edward, 1969, Odd Man In. Chicago: Quadrangle.
———, 1975, Deviants and Deviance. New York: Praeger.
Schiff, Mara F., 1998, “Restorative Justice Interventions for Juvenile Offend-
ers: A Research Agenda for the Next Decade.” Western CriminologyReview 1: Online (http: //wcr.sonoma.edu/v 1n1/schiff.html).
Schur, Edwin M., 1971, Labeling Deviant Behavior. New York: Harper & Row.
Shannon, Lyle, 1982, Assessing the Relationship of Adult Criminal Careers to Juve-
nile Careers: A Summary. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
Smith, Daniel D., Terrence Finnegan, and Howard N. Snyder, 1980, Delin-
quency 1977: United States Estimates of Cases Processed by Courts with
Juvenile Jurisdiction. Pittsburgh, Pa.: National Center for Juvenile Justice.
Smith, Douglas A. and Patrick R. Gartin, 1989, “Specifying Specific Deter-
rence: The Influence of Arrest on Future Criminal Activity,” AmericanSociological Review 54:94–106.
Snyder, Eloise C., 1971, “The Impact of the Juvenile Court Hearing on the
Child.” Crime & Delinquency 17:180–190.
Stewart, Eric A., Ronald L. Simons, Rand D. Conger, and Laura V. Scaramella,
2002, “Beyond the Interactional Relationship between Delinquency and
Parenting Practices: The Contributions of Legal Sanctions.” Journal ofResearch in Crime and Delinquency 39:36–59.
Strauss, Anselm (ed.), 1964, George Herbert Mead on Social Psychology:
Selected Papers. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. First publishedin1934.

labeling theory 281
Street, David, Robert D. Vinter, and Charles Perrow, 1966, Organization for
Treatment. New York: Free Press.
Tannenbaum, Frank, 1938, Crime and the Community. New York: Ginn and
Company.
Thomas, Charles W. and Donna M. Bishop, 1984, “The Effect of Formal and
Informal Sanctions on Delinquency: A Longitudinal Comparison of Label-
ing and Deterrence Theories.” Criminology 75:1222–1245.
Thornton, William E., Jennifer A. James, and William G. Doerner, 1982,
Delinquency and Justice. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman.
Thorsell, Bernard A. and Lloyd W. Klemke, 1972, “The Labeling Process:
Reinforcement or Deterrent?” Law & Society Review 6:393–403.
Thrasher, Frederick M., 1927, The Gang. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tracy, Paul E., Marvin E. Wolfgang, and Robert M. Figlio, 1990, Delinquency
Careers in Two Birth Cohorts. New York: Plenum.
Trice, Harrison M. and Paul Michael Roman, 1970, “Delabeling, Relabeling,
and Alcoholics Anonymous.” Social Problems 17:538–546.
Triplett, Ruth A. and G. Roger Jarjoura, 1994, “Theoretical and Empirical Speci-
fication of a Model of Informal Labeling.” Journal of Quantitative Criminol-ogy10:241–276.
Vagg, Jon, 1998, “Delinquency and Shame: Data from Hong Kong.” British
Journal of Criminology 38:247–264.
Wellford, Charles F. and Ruth A. Triplett, 1993, “The Future of Labeling
Theory: Foundations and Promises.” Pp. 1–22 in Freda Adler and William
S. Laufer (eds.), New Directions in Criminological Theory. New Brunswick,N.J.: Transaction.
Werthman, Carl, 1970, “The Function of Social Definitions in the Develop-
ment of Delinquent Careers.” Pp. 9–44 in Peter G. Garabedian and Don C.
Gibbons (eds.), Becoming Delinquent. Chicago: Aldine.
Whitehead, John T. and Steven P. Lab, 1999, Juvenile Justice, third edition.
Cincinnati: Anderson.
Williams, Jay R. and Martin Gold, 1972, “From Delinquent Behavior to
Official Delinquency.” Social Problems 20:209–229.
Winner, Lawrence T., Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, Donna M. Bishop, and Charles E.
Frazier, 1997, “The Transfer of Juveniles to Criminal Court: Re-examin-
ing Recidivism over the Long Term.” Crime & Delinquency 43:548–563.
Wolfgang, Marvin E., Robert M. Figlio, and Thorsten Sellin, 1972, Delin-
quency in a Birth Cohort. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

This page intentionally left blank

10
The Radical Theory
of Delinquency
283Historical Overview
The radical theory of criminality argues that criminal behavior is a re-
sult of the repressive efforts of the ruling class to control the subjectclass. The effects of this repression are not only higher instances ofcrime and delinquency among the subjugated class (the lower class,
generally), but also greater tendencies among the middle and upper
classes to label the actions of the lower class as criminal in order tofacilitate their control. Basically, this view is a more specific statement
of a general conflict interpretation of criminality (see Lynch and
Groves, 1986).
A conflict perspective of society stresses the existence of different
value systems and norms that influence the efforts of people to estab-lish rules and to regulate behavior. This perspective, as it relates to crimi-nal and delinquent behavior, is implied or incorporated in the theories
of Shaw and McKay, Merton, Sellin, and Sutherland (see Chapters 5
and7). In addition to these contributions, others have developed theories
of crime and delinquency that are conflict oriented. George Vold ( 1979),
for example, notes that laws are passed in response to the struggles of
competing interest groups. Furthermore, he contends that some crimi-nal behaviors are committed in accordance with norms that were pre-
viously acceptable, but that have become illegal because of the successful
efforts of competing interest groups.

284 theories of delinquency
Austin Turk ( 1969) contends that value conflicts can influence the
eventual identification of one as a criminal or delinquent, particularly
if the conflicts appear threatening to society’s officials. This theory
basically places the significance of value conflicts at the point of inter-
action between citizens and authority figures. Turk argues that amongthe groups most likely to be identified as delinquent are the juvenile
gangs, because they are likely to be in open conflict with the police
who often perceive the juveniles’ behavior as threatening and hostile.
Another aspect of conflict theory is included in the assumptions
of labeling theory (see Chapter 9). One part of labeling theory is con-
flict oriented—the aspect that examines the reasons why some indi-viduals are labeled as criminals or delinquents and others are not, when
both sets of people have committed essentially the same acts (see also,
Meier, 1980).
Most conflict theories of crime and delinquency assume that laws
are developed and enforced because some people have a virtual mo-nopoly on power and others are essentially powerless (Quinney, 1970;
Chambliss, 1974). The nature of power conflicts is variously interpreted.
The development of radical theory is seen by some as the culminationof thinking that views delinquency in terms of rule making and en-forcement rather than as an individualistic tendency (Empey, 1982).
Radical theory differs from other conflict theories in that it proposesthat capitalism is the root cause of much criminal behavior, particularlythat committed by the lower class. As such, the proper solution to the
problem of crime is to eliminate capitalism and replace it with some-
thing more socialistic; to some, a radical solution indeed. The economicemphasis of radical theory is associated with Karl Marx and, accord-
ingly, some argue that this approach should be called “Marxist” (a view
which will be challenged later in this chapter).
The somewhat recent popularity of this perspective stems from the
persistence of social ills, such as war, racism, poverty, social unrest, politi-cal and governmental corruption, and urban decay, which have plaguedAmerica and other Western societies for decades. The persistence and
exacerbation of these problems, it is argued, have created a “crisis of le-
gitimacy” in America that has promoted a fertile atmosphere for the growthof a radical perspective on crime and social problems in general (Sykes,
1974; Meier, 1980; Empey, 1982). But this does not mean that Marxist

the radical theory of delinquency 285
theories of crime are recent innovations; in fact, they were proposed in
the early part of this century by Willem Bonger ( 1916).
Basic Assumptions The first and foremost assumption of the radical
approach to delinquency is that most behavior is the product of a struggleamong the classes within society, particularly between those who own
the tools of production (the bourgeoisie) and those who do not (the
proletariat).
Second, radical theory assumes that the economic system of capi-
talism is primarily responsible for the class divisions within society.
Third, it assumes that the bourgeoisie, either directly or through
its agents, such as the State, controls the proletariat, economically, in-
stitutionally, or legally. For example, the occupational choices, educa-
tional opportunities, familial arrangements, and legality of customs andbehavior among the proletariat are controlled by the bourgeoisie in order
to protect the interests of the ruling class and to keep the proletariat in
a subordinate position in society.
A fourth assumption of this theory is that most official crime and
delinquency is committed by the lower and working classes as a formof accommodation to the restraints placed on them by the bourgeoi-sie. In addition, some “criminal” acts of the proletariat are artifactual
judgments imposed by the agents of the bourgeoisie to keep certain
people or certain situations under control.
1
Figure 13 schematically illustrates the assumptions of radical theory.
key concepts
Class Conflict While Marx and the radical criminologists indict capi-
talism as the root of most criminality, the major concept in this view of
Figure 13

286 theories of delinquency
delinquency is class conflict, based on economic considerations. Without
this conflict, and the attendant efforts of the bourgeois class to protectits interests, criminal behavior among the proletariat would not be nec-
essary, either as a response of accommodation or as a mechanism of
bourgeois control.Surplus Labor A second key concept in this perspective is surplus la-
bor, the major instrument by which the ruling class in a capitalist soci-ety exploits the working, propertyless classes. Essentially, it is arguedthat a worker’s labor produces a greater value in goods than the wage
earned for work. The capitalist, or employer, can use the laborer to
produce commodities whose value far exceeds the cost to the employerof the laborer’s work (the wages). The capitalist can thus accumulate
greater amounts of wealth with limited investment or risk. Laborers, if
they are to work at all, must work the amount of hours assigned tothem by their capitalist employers. Those hours employees are required
to work over and above what is needed to replace their wages are called
surplus labor. Surplus labor is one means by which the capitalist ex-ploits the working class (Marx, 1950b; Hirst, 1975; Gintis, 1976).
Discussion Although the radical perspective draws heavily on the
ideas of Karl Marx, it would be inaccurate to characterize all of the
assumptions listed above as purely Marxist for the simple fact that Marx
himself had little to say about the subjects of crime and delinquency.As a matter of fact, Marx classified most criminals as lumpenproletarians ,
or the “dangerous class,” the déclassé “scum” who had abdicated theirclass positions and could not be counted on for revolutionary purposes(Marx and Engels, 1950; Marx, 1950a, c). Criminals, in other words, had
little place in Marx’s heart or in his visions of a just society. For thisreason it would be more appropriate to refer to radical theory as neo-
Marxist (Friedrichs, 1980a).
2
Borrowing, then, from some of the tenets of Marx, radical crimi-
nologists have built a number of theoretically important statementsconcerning the issue of criminality in capitalist societies. Notable among
these efforts is the work of William Chambliss ( 1975), who lists a
“Marxian paradigm” of propositions concerning crime and the law.
The paradigm is divided into three sections: the nature of criminal
law, the consequences of crime for society, and the causes of criminal

the radical theory of delinquency 287
behavior. Each section contains three propositions. An example of a
proposition concerning the nature of criminal law is, “As capitalistsocieties industrialize and the gap between the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat widens, penal law will expand in an effort to coerce the
proletariat into submission.” On the consequences of crime for soci-ety, Chambliss proposes that, “Crime diverts the lower class’s atten-
tion from the exploitation they experience, and directs it toward other
members of their own class rather than toward the capitalist class orthe economic system.” With regard to the causes of crime, Chambliss
argues that “Criminal and non-criminal behavior stem from people
acting rationally in ways that are compatible with their class position.Crime is a reaction to the life conditions of a person’s social class”
(1975:152–153).
Richard Quinney, well known for his contributions to the radical
perspective, discusses in Class, State, and Crime (1980) both the basic
reasons for criminality among the oppressed and the injustices com-
mitted by, or in the name of, the capitalist (ruling) class against thenoncapitalist classes.
Utilizing this framework, Quinney envisions two broad categories
of criminality: crimes of domination and repression and crimes of ac-commodation and resistance. Crimes of domination and repression are
committed by agents of the capitalist class to keep this class in a posi-
tion of supremacy. Thus, crime control policies of the government serveto criminalize those of the working class who appear to threaten the
existing order. These agencies may even break the law in order to obtain
the more important goal of maintaining order (crimes of control andcrimes of government). In addition, Quinney argues that the domina-
tion of the noncapitalist classes occurs through the manipulation of
criminal values to the extent that those in the working class accept aslegitimate the very laws and policies established to control them. Fi-
nally, under crimes of domination and repression, Quinney lists crimesof economic domination. Examples of these crimes include the white-collar offenses, environmental pollution, and organized crime, which
is joined with the interests of the capitalists in preserving the capitalist
system.
Crimes of accommodation and resistance are crimes committed
mainly by the working class in order to survive the repressive and

288 theories of delinquency
oppressive tactics of the capitalist class. Included in this category of
crimes are predatory (economically oriented) crimes, such as burglary,robbery, and drug dealing. Second, there are the personal crimes of
murder, assault, and rape, which are typically committed against mem-
bers of the same class and not specifically against the capitalist system.In addition, Quinney lists crimes of clandestine assembly-line sabotage,
political resistance, and open rebellion, committed by the working class
as a means of resisting the control efforts of the capitalist class.
To Quinney and other Marxist criminologists (Spitzer, 1975 ), an
inherent characteristic of capitalism is the existence of contradictions,stemming basically from the problem of surplus labor. Capitalism, it isargued, cannot create a situation in which the value of human labor is
consonant with the needs of the capitalists. Consequently, “problem
populations” emerge that must be continually guarded and controlled.This concern over problem populations creates among capitalists a
greater dependence on the State and numerous social institutions to
handle and control these people. Over time, the State assumes a majorrole in the criminalization of the working class and the management of
those institutions established to control legally those of the working
class (Gordon, 1973; Quinney, 1980). Quinney ( 1979) also argues that
even criminologists have been co-opted by the State in the study and
control of crime among lower-class people.
The contradictions of capitalism continue to grow as capitalism
advances. Even the institutions designed to handle the problem popu-lations for the ruling class begin to develop their own identities and
functions, which are not always identical with the interests of capital-ism and which further add to the problems and contradictions of capi-
talism (Spitzer, 1975). In addition, the growth of problem populations
in advanced capitalism extends the oppressed or ruled classes to in-
clude even the petty bourgeoisie, such as professionals and middle-
management bureaucrats (Quinney, 1980).
Not all spokespersons for the radical perspective, of course, agree
on every point regarding crime and delinquency (Friedrichs, 1980b).
David Gordon ( 1973), for example, argues that basic institutions within
capitalist societies must be altered substantially if crime is to be pre-
vented. While he contends that capitalism is the fundamental cause of
crime, the system is so entrenched in society that its abolition cannot

the radical theory of delinquency 289
be a realistic mechanism of crime prevention. Instead, the institutions
that serve capitalism must be changed to serve the needs of all thepeople. Gordon suggests that a “Family Model of the Criminal Pro-
cess” ( 1973:185) be considered in which the criminal is viewed as a trans-
gressor of family rules and trust. The proper response would be a loving,
supportive concern for the well-being of the transgressor, a response
designed not only to admonish and correct the offender, but also to
examine the family’s contribution to his or her misdeeds.
Steven Spitzer ( 1975) contends that the transformation of a “both-
ersome population” into a group deemed in need of control is neithera simple nor an automatic process. Instead, the transformation dependson a variety of situations and circumstances that involve both the con-
trol system and the potential target population, such as the relative power
of the State in the control system, the perceived size and degree ofthreat of the population, the degree of organization of this population,
the availability and effectiveness of alternatives to control and domina-
tion, and the utility of the problem population to the capitalist system.
Evaluation As Ronald Akers suggests ( 1979), the evaluation of the
radical perspective must carefully distinguish between the theory of Marx
and the ideology of Marxist philosophy. It is sometimes difficult to
distinguish between what is thought to be an observation of the societal
contributions to crime and a description of what societal conditionsought to be relative to crime. Moreover, in some treatises, the topic of
crime becomes secondary to the issues of humanitarianism and humanrights and how these relate to capitalism and socialism (Taylor et al.,1973). In an earlier edition of Class, State, and Crime, for example,
Quinney ( 1977) concludes his discussion with the statement, “We are
engaged in socialist revolution” ( 1977:165). In other words, capitalism
must be destroyed and the contradictory and unjust way in which
criminality is handled in capitalist societies is just another reason why
capitalism should be eliminated.
If one concentrates on the social theory of Marx as it pertains to
criminality, two fairly distinct issues emerge: ( 1) how capitalism con-
tributes to criminality, especially among the lower classes, and ( 2) how
capitalist interests are served by the identification and legal control of
individuals, groups, or social categories of people.

290 theories of delinquency
The influence of capitalism and the capitalist class on crime and de-
linquency rests largely on the assumption that delinquency is a lower-
class phenomenon (Klockars, 1979). To reiterate a point made in Chapter 6,
evidence points to a significant amount of delinquency among youthfrom lower andmiddle social classes (see also, Schwendinger and
Schwendinger, 1976), although delinquency among lower-class youth
seems to be relatively more violent, and probably committed by a smallsegment of young males. The existence of middle- or upper-middle-class delinquency creates a problem for the argument that class-based
conflicts and oppressions generate criminality within the subordinate or
powerless class. If the ruling class creates the rules and determines theeconomic course of society, how is it that some (perhaps many) of those
in the ruling class themselves resort to crime and delinquency? If it is
assumed that greed and conflict among the bourgeoisie contribute totheir criminality, then the same intraclass factors may be presumed to
operate on the proletariat as well. Attempts to expand the definition ofthe oppressed class to include all but a very few members of society ineffect explain nothing from a class standpoint, because the variation among
classes has been virtually eliminated.
3
The focus of the radical perspective on the economic domination
of the lower class has been previously discussed under the topic of de-linquency and opportunity (Chapter 6). To restate the general conclu-
sion of that discussion, evidence demonstrating the influence of economic
issues and concerns on delinquent behavior is at best inconsistent and of-
ten weak. Juveniles are concerned with many other things, besides theireconomic position in society, including personal status among peers, schoolstatus, and parental relationships. It may be the case that modern youth
are becoming more pragmatic and economically motivated than their
counterparts in previous generations. This possibility is in need of fur-ther investigation. If children and adolescents are becoming more eco-
nomically oriented, however, the relationship between delinquency and
social class position would not necessarily be better interpreted from aradical perspective. It might be, for example, that strain theories, such as
Cloward and Ohlin’s differential opportunity thesis, would best explain
delinquency. Perhaps new theories would have to be formulated if itwere found that pragmatism and economic concerns characterized youth
from all social class levels.

the radical theory of delinquency 291
In addition, some, such as Duster ( 1987), Oliver ( 1989), Irvine
(1990), and West ( 1993) maintain that school failure, social problems,
unemployment, and criminality are connected with racial identities and
experiences, not necessarily with social class. Of course, these observa-
tions concerning the impact of race and ethnicity, compared to socialclass, on identities and patterns of criminality, do not completely ne-
gate the tenets of radical theory. However, it is becoming increasingly
clear that society operates on a much more complicated system of so-cial patterning than is depicted in neo-Marxist theories of crime and
delinquency.
Not all of the advocates of the radical perspective feel that capi-
talism has a direct economic effect on delinquency. Some find thatcapitalism exerts numerous indirect effects on delinquency by directly
affecting the social institutions that influence the lives of juveniles(Schwendinger and Schwendinger, 1976; Liazos, 1979). David
Greenberg ( 1977) suggests that the age structure of capitalist societies
results in depressed economic opportunities for juveniles. At the sametime, the period of adolescence is stressful on peer relations, and the
inability in essence to “buy” friends and good times forces many ju-
veniles to steal. In addition, stigmatizing school experiences and de-grading work opportunities (among the few jobs which are available)
are particularly focused on working- and lower-class youth, creating
even greater incentives for delinquency among these adolescents incapitalist societies.
The importance of institutional factors in the explanation of de-
linquency has already been examined (see Chapter 8). Indeed, such
factors do have considerable influence on delinquency and their in-
corporation into radical theory is laudable. The contention that ado-
lescence is a period of status anxiety and peer concern, however, ishardly novel, nor is it necessarily linked to capitalism (a point which
Greenberg himself makes; Greenberg, 1977). Similarly, the connection
between capitalism and degrading school experiences, mentioned ear-lier, has been neither logically nor empirically demonstrated. Thus,
Greenberg’s ideas are somewhat accurate, but their connection with
capitalism is tenuous at best.
In summary, the connection between capitalism and delinquency
is questionable because of several factors: ( 1) the existence of widespread

292 theories of delinquency
delinquency among middle- and upper-middle-class juveniles; ( 2) the
relative lack of concern for economic and workforce status among
juveniles; ( 3) the influence of racial and ethnic factors, as opposed to
social class variables, on crime and deviance; and ( 4) the lack of a nec-
essary connection between capitalism per se and institutional or de-mographic conditions within a society.
The second point raised in radical theory is the influence of the
capitalist, ruling, upper class (the exact composition of this class is notuniversally accepted) on the identification or handling of the lower or
oppressed classes.
4 This topic has been investigated from two general
approaches: historical analysis and contemporary investigations of ju-
venile justice decisions. Historically, several observations have indicated
the influence of middle-class values and capitalistic interests in the es-
tablishment of the juvenile court and the philosophy of juvenile jus-tice in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century America (Platt, 1974;
Schwendinger and Schwendinger, 1976 ; Platt, 1977; Krisberg and Aus-
tin,1978). Anthony Platt ( 1977) further indicates that the values of
middle-class housewives heavily influenced policies and legislation af-
fecting juvenile delinquents in the nineteenth century.
The accounts of these developments, however, do not demon-
strate that ruling-class interests were the only considerations involvedin the development of a juvenile justice system. A term often applied
to mid-nineteenth-century juvenile reform efforts is the “Child-Sav-ing Movement” (Platt, 1977; Krisberg and Austin, 1978). Although Platt
and others debate the issue, it seems reasonable that some of the mo-tivations of these reforms were aimed at humanitarian accomplishmentsin addition to, or apart from, the protection of middle- and upper-
class interests (see also, Mennel, 1973).
5
Lamar Empey ( 1982) asserts that the concept of childhood pre-
ceded the invention of delinquency (see also, Ariès, 1962). The mod-
ern concept of childhood embodies sentiments of fragility and
innocence, yet arrogance and susceptibility. This view of the child, ac-cording to Empey, gradually emerged over many centuries and was
influenced by the events of “the Renaissance, the Protestant Refor-
mation, the colonization of the New World, and eventually the In-dustrial Revolution” (Empey, 1982:38). Moreover, the specific influences
that led to the creation of the legal concept of delinquency in 1899

the radical theory of delinquency 293
included a host of factors besides those of economics and social class.
Empey indicates that religious (particularly Puritan) influences were mostimportant in nineteenth-century reform efforts, which eventually led
to the development of separate confinement facilities and legal pro-
ceedings for children (see also, Rothman, 1971). Furthermore, changes
in attitudes and in family and community structures in the aftermath of
the Declaration of Independence also contributed heavily to the sepa-
rate confinement of juveniles and to creation of the juvenile court.
Moreover, an examination of the development of delinquency
legislation in Canada concluded that the emergence of probation agencieswas more responsible for this legislation than the contradictions ofcapitalism or the political maneuverings of a ruling class (Hagan and
Leon, 1977).
At best, therefore, it would seem that a neo-Marxist historical view
of delinquency is incomplete and only partially valid. Of course, classdivisions exist in society. It is also certain that some laws are enacted to
protect interests that may be identified with certain social class posi-tions. To contend that class factors influence the making of all laws, or
even the bulk of them, however, is assuming something that has yet to
be conclusively demonstrated.
Contemporary studies of the processing of delinquents by police
and court officials also yield limited support for the neo-Marxist ap-proach. The significance of social class in the decisions of these offi-cials is questionable. There is some evidence that social class does indeed
exert an influence on the official handling of juveniles (Thornberry,
1973; McCarthy and Smith, 1986; Sampson, 1986), particularly when
social class is measured according to the perceptions of juvenile justice
officials (Carter, 1979) or when the type of delinquency under consid-
eration involves moral or status offenses (Carter and Clelland, 1979).
Many studies, however, have found that social class has little sig-
nificance on the official handling of juveniles, especially in comparisonto variables such as offense severity and number of prior offenses(Arnold, 1971; Scarpitti and Stephenson, 1971; Thomas and Sieverdes,
1975; Cohen and Kluegel, 1978; Johnstone, 1978; Hindelang et al., 1979;
Sieverdes et al., 1979; Horwitz and Wasserman, 1980).
Besides the importance of offense-related variables in the handling
of juveniles, some investigations have pointed to the influence of other

294 theories of delinquency
non-offense-related factors besides social class. Studies of police deci-
sions have often indicated that situational, “curbside” considerationsand departmental norms and regulations have an influence on the pro-
cessing of juveniles (Piliavin and Briar, 1964; Black and Reiss, 1970;
Weiner and Willie, 1971; Lundman et al., 1978). Donald Black and Albert
Reiss ( 1970) maintain that what might appear to be racial (and to some
extent class) discrimination on the part of the police is actually a reflec-
tion of the complainant’s visible preference for the police to make anarrest. The preference for police action, furthermore, is greater among
African-American complainants, who are more often victimized by black
juveniles than by white youth. This study was replicated several yearslater in another location, and the results were the same (Lundman
et al., 1978).
The importance of juvenile court norms and organizational pro-
cedures on the processing of youth was mentioned in the previouschapter. Additional research indicates that juvenile court judges are
strongly influenced by the recommendations of the caseworkers work-ing with the court (Kraus, 1975; Warner, 1981), and the recommenda-
tions of these officers are not necessarily associated with the social classof the juveniles referred to court.
Bortner ( 1984) places most of this literature, and the surrounding
controversies, in perspective by noting that much of what is decided inthe juvenile justice system, especially the juvenile court system, is indi-vidualized according to the specifics of a case, and individual stereotypes
of decision makers (pp. 243–249). In an analysis of the processing of youth
in one juvenile court system, Bortner offers evidence that legal factors
such as number of prior referrals, detention decisions, and presence of
an attorney exert greater influence on the outcomes of cases than do
“socioeconomic” variables, such as gender, age, and race (but not socialclass). However, the relative power of all these factors, in terms of ex-
plaining decisions, is not very great (pp. 253–258). This means that many
other factors, presumably individualistic, operate to influence decision
making among probation officers, judges, and others working in juve-
nile courts. In addition, this “individualized justice” inhibits a fuller ex-
amination of the social and political contexts within which juveniles areprocessed and treated. Thus, while individual decisions may be just, they
are rendered “within an unequal and unjust context” (p. 251). This last

the radical theory of delinquency 295
point seems to be what radical criminologists are making, but often within
the realm of the deleterious effects of capitalism. (See Mahoney, 1987,
for another view of the social and political contexts within which deci-
sion making occurs in the juvenile justice system.)
The empirical support for the assumption that social control offi-
cials discriminate against lower-class (and often nonwhite) juveniles isinconsistent. While it is obviously true that such discrimination does
exist, its extent and overall significance in the processing of juvenilesare variable. The data suggest that social class exerts an influence in the
making and enforcing of some laws, at various times, in different loca-
tions, and in connection with other factors. The specification of all ofthese conditions, however, has not been systematically identified, nor
have these qualifiers been formally incorporated into radical theory.
Beyond “Radical” Theory
The discussion and dialogue concerning radical theory as an explana-
tion of criminality has created several divisions or positions, some of
which have moved well beyond a Marxist base. In part, these newerconceptualizations are the result of reactions to some of the earlier
criticisms of radical theory, as well as to reflective reinterpretations of
the relationship among society, patterns of criminality, and reactions tocrime and delinquency. Some of these newer positions tend to focus
on female crime and delinquency, and will be discussed in the follow-
ing chapter (see also, Lilly et al., 1995: Chapter 7).
While there are too many views and scholarly positions within the
framework of radical theory to discuss in this volume, one division inparticular has relevance for the present discussion. This division con-trasts what has become known as a “left realist” position, as opposed
to a “left idealist” point of view (Schwartz and DeKeseredy, 1991 ; Young
and Mathews, 1992; Lilly et al., 1995:192–195).
There are several points along which the debate regarding left re-
alism and left idealism may be argued. However, one essential element
seems to be the concern for left realists to devise meaningful crimeintervention strategies. The left realist position maintains that crime and
delinquency cannot be resolved simply by advocating the dismantling

296 theories of delinquency
of capitalism, or of attempts to disarm the negative effects of capitalism
by discourse and dialogue. Left idealism, by implicative contrast, is thusplaced in a kind of traditional, rather naive mold, in which crime con-
trol is to be accomplished by quixotic, idealist calls for the elimination
of capitalism.
This is not to say that capitalism is not a problematic factor in a
“leftist” explanation of crime, whether the left is realist or idealist. Forthe realists, however, the concern would appear to be with the morepressing, practical results of crime, including the negative effects of crime
on the oppressed. The deeper roots of crime, traced to capitalism, are
to be dealt with at a later date (Lynch and Groves, 1989:126–130).
Certainly, not all criminologists, including conflict theorists, who
might adopt this approach to crime control identify their position asleft realist (Groves and Sampson, 1987). Furthermore, the crime pre-
vention strategies consistent with a left realist position are hard to dis-
tinguish from more traditional theoretical perspectives, such as strain
or social disorganization theory, or even social control theory. This pointis not lost on Groves and Sampson ( 1987), who present various ways in
which these perspectives, and other “traditional” theories, overlap radicaltheory (although radical and traditional theories remain conceptuallydistinct).
One reason there seems to be convergence between radical theory
and more traditional theories of crime and delinquency is the recogni-tion among left realists that lower-class crime is not only a reality, but
a source of concern among lower-class victims of crime committed by
lower-class offenders (Schwartz and DeKeseredy, 1991). Thus, left re-
alists are not content with describing criminality strictly from a class
oppression point of view. Even if the pressures for crime among the
lower class are generated from middle- and upper-class attempts tocontrol workers, which is a point not forgotten by left realists, the fact
remains that crime among the lower classes is a reality, and must be
incorporated into explanations of crime.
These “realist” conceptualizations certainly address many of the
concerns with neo-Marxist views of criminality. Moreover, left realists,and other conflict theorists who advocate realist perspectives, seem tobe as interested in explaining crime and delinquency as with control-
ling it, and with accomplishing these goals using “empirical” methods.

the radical theory of delinquency 297
This direction within radical theory would seem to augur more favor-
able reaction among criminologists in general, as well as within the public,for the questions asked and answers proposed have a more direct, prac-
tical referent. In addition, the left realist perspective is in keeping with
the Marxist orientation of merging theory, and history, with action, orpractice, that is, “praxis” (Groves and Newman, 1993:242–244). One
rather ironic result of the left realist position, however, is its distancefrom a “radical” solution to the control of crime (even though the ideathat crime is ultimately caused by capitalism is a domain assumption
within radical theory). Future developments within this perspective may
begin to address this contradiction and its implications for radical theory(see, for example, the interesting debate between Schwartz and
DeKeseredy, as proponents of left realism, and Henry, as an opponent
of the theory, found in Fuller and Hickey, 1999:128–148).
Summary
The neo-Marxist or radical approach to delinquency is based on broad
conceptualizations of juvenile behavior and societal responses. Per-haps because of the generalizations which often accompany such an
approach, efforts to assess the validity of its assumptions have yielded
inconclusive results. Some feel that radical criminologists find unac-ceptable any attempt to quantify the decisions of police and court
officials and the behavior of juveniles ( Jensen, 1981). This type of
approach to criminology is thought to serve only the ruling class and
the State, at the expense of the oppressed masses. From this perspec-
tive, no amount of empirical evidence could dissuade one from Marxist
assumptions, although such an approach is not necessarily incompat-ible with a radical view of criminality (Groves and Sampson, 1987).
To become a viable theoretical perspective, however, the radical ap-proach must begin to adopt the usual tenets of the scientific, or atleast empirical, approach to discovery. To deny the value of empirical
assessments of a perspective is to deny the theoretical process alto-
gether. One is left having to decide what is acceptable on the subjec-tive grounds of faith and belief. However, to an increasing extent, the
methodological implications of radical theorists, particularly within left

298 theories of delinquency
realism, do incorporate empiricism in the study of crime and delin-
quency. This criticism of radical theory, therefore, is becoming lessvalid (see also, Lynch and Groves, 1989:51).
In some ways the subjective nature of the radical position is its
most appealing characteristic. The assumption that delinquency and itstreatment (or punishment) are influenced by class considerations is based
on traditional sociological conceptions (see Chapters 5 and 6) and is,
therefore, certainly not without precedent. Calls for changes in the
processing of delinquents based on their social class position are praise-
worthy, even if such reforms are not solidly based on empirical find-
ings. It is precisely this distinction between theory and action that mustbe maintained in the overall evaluation of radical theory. The assump-
tions of this perspective are questionable, considering research find-
ings. The stronger value of this approach would appear to lie with itsattention to social injustices and the need to correct them.
As an explanation of delinquency, radical theory has several deficiencies:
(1) the existence of crime and delinquency, in varying degrees, in socialist
countries, such as the former U.S.S.R., Cuba, and China (Connor, 1970,1972;
Hinners, 1973; Liazos, 1979; Rosner, 1986; Curran and Cook, 1993); (2) the
presence of middle-class delinquency; ( 3) the relative strength of other fac-
tors, besides social class and economics, in the explanation of delinquency
and reactions to it; and ( 4) the problem of documenting class-linked motives
for behavior, both on the part of juveniles and social control officials, such
as the police and judges. Until these issues are resolved within the frame-
work of the radical perspective, the importance of radical theory will likely
remain within the realm of identifying and correcting social injustices ratherthan within the category of explanations of delinquency.
Notes
1. This discussion of assumptions is based on a number of sources, including
Marx and Engels ( 1950), Bottomore ( 1956), Gordon ( 1973), Chambliss ( 1975),
Spitzer ( 1975), Quinney ( 1980), Empey ( 1982), and Empey and Stafford (1991 ).
2. To be sure, Marx advocated political revolution throughout much of his
writing. In this sense, one could argue that he actually championed criminal-
ity. By and large, however, Marx did not envision himself as a criminal and hecertainly did not categorize himself with street criminals, the scum he soderisively excluded from his revolutionary plans.

the radical theory of delinquency 299
3. It is certainly plausible to assume that social and economic conditions
may have adverse consequences for members of all social classes. The point
here is that the economic frustrations and related criminal accommoda-tions thought to be generated by capitalism are likely to be relatively morepronounced for those in the lower classes. Nonetheless, radical theory isplaced in the position of having to account both for the existence of crimeamong all social classes and for the relative ability of those in higher socialclasses to handle the negative economic effects of capitalism in noncrimi-nal ways.
4. A general issue here is the question of who rulesversus who controls or
manages wealth and corporate power. It is begging the question to assume thetwo are one and the same. At any level of society, decisions, policies, and laws aremade that may reflect various interests or class positions. The important task isto determine more precisely which interests are involved in which decisions orlaws and the processes whereby one set of interests prevails over another. Suchconcerns as these are beyond the topic of juvenile delinquency, but their inves-tigation is central to the conflict and radical positions.
5. Sutton ( 1985) argues that the establishment of juvenile courts and
specialized delinquency laws in the twentieth century served to formalizeand protect the interests of child-saving efforts which had already appeared.Thus, the interests of child savers, and their ideology of “progressive re-form,” were served by the formal development of the juvenile justice sys-tem in the United States at the turn of the twentieth century.
References
Akers, Ronald L., 1979, “Theory and Ideology in Marxist Criminology: Com-
ments on Turk, Quinney, Toby, and Klockars.” Criminology 16:527–544.
Aris, Phillippe, 1962, Centuries of Childhood. New York: Knopf.
Arnold, William R., 1971, “Race and Ethnicity Relative to Other Factors in
Juvenile Court Dispositions.” American Journal of Sociology 77:221–227.
Black, Donald J. and Albert J. Reiss, Jr., 1970, “Police Control of Juveniles.”
American Sociological Review 35:63–77.
Bonger, Willem, 1916, Criminality and Economic Conditions. Reprinted,
Bloomington, Ind.: University of Indiana Press, 1969.
Bortner, M. A., 1984, Inside a Juvenile Court: The Tarnished Ideal of Indi-
vidualized Justice. New York: New York University Press.
Bottomore, T.B. (trans.), 1956, Karl Marx. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Carter, Timothy J., 1979, “Juvenile Court Dispositions: A Comparison of Status
and Nonstatus Offenders.” Criminology 17:341–359.

300 theories of delinquency
Carter, Timothy J. and Donald Clelland, 1979, “A Neo-Marxian Critique,
Formulation, and Test of Juvenile Dispositions as a Function of Social Class.”
Social Problems 27:96–108.
Chambliss, William J., 1974, “Functional and Conflict Theories of Crime.”
MSS Modular Publications 17:1–23.
———, 1975, “Toward a Political Economy of Crime.” Theory and Society
2:149–170.
Cohen, Lawrence E. and James R. Kluegel, 1978, “Determinants of Juvenile
Court Dispositions: Ascriptive and Achieved Factors in Two MetropolitanCourts.” American Sociological Review 43:162–176.
Connor, Walter D., 1970, “Juvenile Delinquency in the U.S.S.R.: Some Quantita-
tive and Qualitative Indicators.” American Sociological Review 35:283–297.
———, 1972, Deviance in Soviet Society. New York: Columbia University Press.
Curran, Daniel J. and Sandra Cook, 1993, “Growing Fears, Rising Crime:
Juveniles and China’s Justice System.” Crime & Delinquency 39:296–315.
Duster, Troy, 1987 , “Crime, Unemployment, and the Black Underclass.”
Crime & Delinquency 33:300–316.
Empey, Lamar T., 1982, American Delinquency, revised edition. Homewood,
Ill.: Dorsey.
Empey, Lamar T. and Mark Stafford, 1991, American Delinquency, third edi-
tion. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.
Friedrichs, David O., 1980a, “Radical Criminology in the United States: An
Interpretive Understanding.” Pp. 35–60 in James A. Inciardi (ed.), q.v.
———, 1980b, “Carl Klockars vs. the ‘Heavy Hitters’: A Preliminary Cri-
tique.” Pp. 149–160 in James A. Inciardi (ed.), q.v.
Fuller, John R. and Eric W. Hickey (eds.), 1999, Controversial Issues in Crimi-
nology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gintis, Herbert, 1976, “The Nature of Labor Exchange and the Theory of
Capitalist Production.” Review of Radical Political Economics 8:36–54.
Gordon, David M., 1973, “Capitalism, Class, and Crime in America.” Crime
& Delinquency 19:163–186.
Greenberg, David F., 1977, “Delinquency and the Age Structure of Society.”
Contemporary Crises: Crime, Laws, and Social Policy 1:189–223.
Groves, W. Byron and Graeme R. Newman, 1993, “Marx, Sartre, and the
Resurrection of Choice in Theoretical Criminology.” Pp. 231–245 in Graeme
Newman, Michael J. Lynch, and David H. Galaty (eds.), Discovering Crimi-nology: From W. Byron Groves. New York: Harrow and Heston.
Groves, W. Byron and Robert J. Sampson, 1987, “Traditional Contribu-
tions to Radical Criminology.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delin-quency 24:181–214.

the radical theory of delinquency 301
Hagan, John and Jeffrey Leon, 1977, “Rediscovering Delinquency: Social
History, Political Ideology, and the Sociology of Law.” American Socio-
logical Review 42:587–598.
Hindelang, Michael J., Travis Hirschi, and Joseph G. Weis, 1979, “Correlates
of Delinquency.” American Sociological Review 44:995–1014.
Hinners, James E., 1973, “Soviet Correctional Measures for Juvenile Delin-
quency.” British Journal of Criminology 13:218–226.
Hirst, Paul Q., 1975, “Marx and Engels on Law, Crime and Morality.”
Pp.203–232 in Ian Taylor, Paul Walton, and Jock Young (eds), Critical
Criminology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Horwitz, Allen and Michael Wasserman, 1980, “Some Misleading Concep-
tions in Sentencing Research: An Example and a Reformulation in theJuvenile Court.” Criminology 18:411–424.
Inciardi, James A., 1980, Radical Criminology. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Irvine, Jacqueline Jordan, 1990, Black Students and School Failure: Policies,
Practices, and Prescriptions. New York: Greenwood.
Jensen, Gary F., 1981, “The Sociology of Delinquency: Current Issues.”
Pp.7–19 in Gary F. Jensen (ed.), Sociology of Delinquency. Beverly
Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Johnstone, John W. C., 1978, “Social Class, Social Areas, and Delinquency.”
Sociology and Social Research 63:49–72.
Klockars, Carl B., 1979, “The Contemporary Crises of Marxist Criminol-
ogy.” Criminology 16:477–515.
Kraus, Jonathan, 1975, “Decision Process in the Children’s Court and the
Social Background Report.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delin-quency 12:17–29.
Krisberg, Barry and James Austin (eds.), 1978, The Children of Ishmael: Critical
Perspectives on Juvenile Justice. Palo Alto, Calif.: Mayfield.
Liazos, Alexander, 1979, “Capitalism, Socialism, and Delinquency.” Pp. 336–379
in Lamar T. Empey (ed.), The Future of Childhood and Juvenile Justice.Charlottesville, Va.: University Press of Virginia.
Lilly, J. Robert, Francis T. Cullen, and Richard A. Ball, 1995, Criminological Theory:
Context and Consequences, second edition. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Lundman, Richard J., Richard E. Sykes, and John P. Clark, 1978, “Police
Control of Juveniles: A Replication.” Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency 15:74–91.
Lynch, Michael J. and W. Byron Groves, 1986, A Primer in Radical Crimi-
nology. New York: Harrow and Heston.
———, 1989, A Primer in Radical Criminology, second edition. New York:
Harrow and Heston.

302 theories of delinquency
Mahoney, Anne Rankin, 1987, Juvenile Justice in Context. Boston: North-
eastern University Press.
Marx, Karl, 1950a, “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.” Pp. 225–311
in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, q.v.
———, 1950b, “Wages, Price and Profit.” Pp. 361–405 in Karl Marx and
Frederick Engels, q.v.
———, 1950c, “Manifesto of the Communist Party.” Pp. 21–61 in Karl Marx
and Frederick Engels, q.v.
Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels, 1950 , Selected Works, Vol. 1 . London:
Lawrence and Wishart.
McCarthy, Belinda R. and Brent L. Smith, 1986, “The Conceptualization
of Discrimination in the Juvenile Justice Process: The Impact of Admin-
istrative Factors and Screening Decisions on Juvenile Court Dispositions.”Criminology 24:41–64.
Meier, Robert F., 1980, “The New Criminology: Continuity in Crimino-
logical Theory.” Pp. 372–387 in Stuart H. Traub and Craig B. Little (eds.),
Theories of Deviance, second edition. Itasca, Ill.: F.E. Peacock.
Mennel, Robert M., 1973, Thorns and Thistles. Hanover, N.H.: University
Press of New England.
Oliver, William, 1989, “Black Males and Social Problems: Prevention through
Afrocentric Socialization.” Journal of Black Studies 20:15–39.
Piliavin, Irving and Scott Briar, 1964, “Police Encounters with Juveniles.”
American Journal of Sociology 70:206–214.
Platt, Anthony, 1974, “The Triumph of Benevolence: The Origins of the Ju-
venile Justice System in the United States.” Pp. 356–389 in Richard
Quinney (ed.), Criminal Justice in America. Boston: Little, Brown.
———, 1977, The Child Savers, second edition. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Quinney, Richard, 1970, The Social Reality of Crime. Boston: Little, Brown.
———, 1977, Class, State, and Crime. New York: David McKay.
———, 1979, “The Production of Criminology.” Criminology 16:445–457.
———, 1980, Class, State, and Crime, second edition. New York: Longman.
Rosner, Lydia S., 1986, The Soviet Way of Crime: Beating the System in
the Soviet Union and the U.S.A. South Hadley, Mass.: Bergin andGarvey.
Rothman, David J., 1971, The Discovery of the Asylum. Boston: Little,
Brown.
Sampson, Robert J., 1986, “Effects of Socioeconomic Context on Official
Reaction to Juvenile Delinquency.” American Sociological Review51:876–885.

the radical theory of delinquency 303
Scarpitti, Frank R. and Richard M. Stephenson, 1971, “Juvenile Court Dis-
positions: Factors in the Decision-Making Process.” Crime & Delinquency
17:142–151.
Schwartz, Martin D. and Walter S. DeKeseredy, 1991, “Left Realist Crimi-
nology: Strengths, Weaknesses, and the Feminist Critique.” Crime, Lawand Social Change 15:51–72.
Schwendinger, Herman and Julia R. Schwendinger, 1976, “Delinquency and
the Collective Varieties of Youth.” Crime and Social Justice 5:7–25.
Sieverdes, Christopher M., Donald J. Shoemaker, and Orville Cunningham,
1979, “Disposition Decisions by Juvenile Court Probation Officers and
Judges: A Multivariate Analysis.” Criminal Justice Review 4:121–132.
Spitzer, Steven, 1975, “Toward a Marxian Theory of Deviance.” Social Prob-
lems 22:638–651.
Sutton, John R., 1985, “The Juvenile Court and Social Welfare: Dynamics of
Progressive Reform.” Law & Society Review 19:107–145.
Sykes, Gresham M., 1974, “The Rise of Critical Criminology.” Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology 65:206–213.
Taylor, Ian, Paul Walton, and Jock Young, 1973, The New Criminology.
New York: Harper & Row.
Thomas, Charles and Christopher M. Sieverdes, 1975, “Juvenile Court Intake:
An Analysis of Discretionary Decision-Making.” Criminology 12:413–434.
Thornberry, Terence P., 1973, “Race, Socioeconomic Status and Sentencing
in the Juvenile Justice System.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology64:90–98.
Turk, Austin T., 1969, Criminality and Legal Order. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Vold, George, 1979, Theoretical Criminology, second edition, prepared by
Thomas J. Bernard. New York: Oxford University Press.
Warner, Jerry T., 1981, “Disposition Decisions by Court Officials in a Rural
Setting.” Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Blacksburg, VA.: Virginia Poly-technic Institute and State University.
Weiner, Norman L. and Charles V. Willie, 1971, “Decisions by Juvenile
Officers.” American Journal of Sociology 77:199–210.
West, Cornell, 1993, Race Matters. Boston: Beacon.
Young, Jock and Roger Mathews, 1992, Rethinking Criminology: The
Realist Debate. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.

This page intentionally left blank

11
Female Delinquency
305Historical Overview
The subject of female involvement in crime, delinquency, and de-
viant behavior has been relegated to secondary importance, althoughspecial attention was given to it by Cesare Lombroso (Lombroso
and Ferrero, 1895), W. I. Thomas (1925 ), Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck
(1934), and Otto Pollak ( 1950), in the period from the turn of the
century to World War II. With the advent of the new feminism, anew focus on this subject was made by Freda Adler ( 1975), Rita
Simon ( 1975), and others, and a controversy was ignited that has
not abated.
Virtually all of the theories discussed thus far have focused on male
participation in delinquent acts. This inattention to women is partly at-
tributed to their perceived limited involvement in crime and delinquency.
In addition, some feel that males have controlled the accumulation and
dissemination of information concerning crime and have collectivelyperpetuated the myth of low female involvement in crime as one means
of dominating women (Pollak, 1950), while others feel that the relatively
greater male criminality is far from mythical, whether it be rooted in bio-
logical or sociocultural factors (Sutherland and Cressey, 1978).
References to female patterns of delinquency have been made
throughout this book. It would be tempting to leave the issue of fe-male delinquency to brief discussions of applications to one theory or
another, but the subject is too complex and too important for that kind

306 theories of delinquency
of treatment. Accordingly, the purpose of the present chapter is to
present discussions of several explanations of female juvenile offend-ing, from traditional to modern perspectives.
Several categories of explanations for female criminality are discussed
in this chapter: ( 1) innate, or basic, sexual characteristics; ( 2) gender roles;
(3) the women’s movement, or female emancipation; ( 4) power-control
theory; and ( 5) feminist views.
For the most part, these explanations of female criminality have
tended to ignore demographic differences, such as age, and to ac-
count for criminal behavior among females in general. Accordingly,the following discussions concentrate on the theories themselves, withspecial reference to adolescent be havior where possible.
Basic Biological and Psychological Approaches
Many students of human behavior, deviant or conforming, contend that
behavior is at least partially a product of natural, inborn traits or tenden-
cies—that is, predispositions. This applies to all human behavior, acts of
males and females, and to people of different races, nationalities, or othersociological divisions. As discussed in Chapter 3, a proponent of this point
of view, with respect to criminality, was Cesare Lombroso.
Although Lombroso’s analyses of criminals were largely confined
to the male sex, he did produce one volume reflecting on female crimi-
nality (Lombroso and Ferrero, 1895). In this work, Lombroso main-
tained that females, as a category, were lacking in sensitivity, compared
to men; he also found females more childlike, morally deficient, jeal-
ous, and vengeful. Ordinarily, Lombroso reasoned, these traits of ven-
geance and cruelty are balanced by maternity, lack of passion, and lowintelligence. In some women, however, these neutralizers are absent,
for a variety of reasons, and the innate cruel tendencies of such women
are released to yield a “born criminal more terrible than any man,” a“double exception” to civilized behavior (Lombroso and Ferrero,
1895:151).
Lombroso reasoned, however, that the majority of female delin-
quents, like males, could be classified as “occasional criminals” whosephysical features contain no signs of degeneration and whose moral

female delinquency 307
character is similar to that of their “normal sisters” (Lombroso and Ferrero,
1895:193–195). In addition, he argued that occasional female criminals
could be encouraged to commit crime because of the increased frus-
trations they would meet in life upon the broadening of their educa-
tion. Lombroso, therefore, recognized the influences of femalecriminality that have gained popularity in recent years.
Another explanation of female criminality was given by Sigmund
Freud, who suggested that females have a natural tendency to envythe symbol of male dominance in society (penis envy). This situation
becomes a type of “castration complex” for girls. Penis envy is present
in young children of both sexes, but Freud felt that it is of more im-portance for females than males (Freud, 1933). As with other signifi-
cant events in the psychosexual development of children, Freudproposed that penis envy does not necessarily lead to problems of ad-justment and deviant behavior. Sometimes the girl becomes sexually
normal and passes through the self-doubt and mother rejection that
accompany the castration complex. Some girls, however, become sexuallyinhibited or neurotic, while still others develop a masculinity complex,
an identity with maleness, so to speak, in which the girl refuses to rec-
ognize her feminine sexuality. Both sexual inhibition and masculineidentity can create behavioral problems for females. Freud suggested
that the masculinity complex can lead to homosexuality, and presum-ably to patterns of delinquency, among girls. Furthermore, he main-tained that the development of a masculinity complex was probably
related to a biological cause, thus linking female criminality with sometype of natural condition.
Freud, however, had little to say about female criminality, adoles-
cent or adult. He acknowledged the small amount of information thatexisted on female personality characteristics in general and suggestedthat his ideas were rather speculative (Freud, 1933).
The views of W. I. Thomas on the female personality and female
delinquency represent a combination and extension of the ideas ofLombroso and Freud. In Sex and Society (1907), Thomas proposed that
women were basically anabolic in constitution, while men were essentially
katabolic. By this, he meant that women tended to accumulate body fat
and fluid, while men tended to release such bodily products. Consequently,
women were seen as more passive and more capable of constitutionally

308 theories of delinquency
adapting to stresses and strains than men, who were considered more en-
ergetic and less able to resist the biological complications of environmentalstress. By extension, Thomas further suggested that the inherent nature of
the male is to be both “the hero and the criminal” (Thomas, 1907:168),
while the female is destined to be concerned about morality and stability
and behavioral acquiescence to the rules of men.
InThe Unadjusted Girl (1925), Thomas argued that people behave
according to four basic wishes: new experience, security, response, andrecognition. With respect to female delinquency, Thomas felt that it
basically starts with the wish for new experience and excitement, which
girls ultimately learn they can achieve by manipulating their “capital”—that is, their sexuality. Thomas argued that the concern with excite-
ment and amusement in delinquent girls largely occurred among
lower-class girls, whom he characterized as “amoral”—in other words,neither immoral nor moral—who manipulate their sexual capital for per-
sonal excitement and perceived gain. In this way, also, Thomas argued
that female delinquency was a result of “adjustment” problems, similarto the Freudian view but without the concept of castration complex.
At the same time, it appears that Thomas foreshadowed the later ex-
planations of female crime and delinquency, which have stressed theimportance of sex roles on such behavior.
Later, theorists sought to explain biological and psychological prop-
erties of female offenders in a variety of ways. Thus, female delinquencyhas been related to abnormal chromosomal configurations (Cowie et al.,
1968), overweight and physical overdevelopment problems (Healy, 1915;
Pollak, 1950), and biopsychological problems associated with menstrua-
tion and puberty (Konopka, 1966). The relationship of menstruation to
delinquency has also been considered by Otto Pollak ( 1950), who used
a Freudian framework. Essentially, Pollak argues that menstruation adds
to the anxiety girls experience over their sexual identities. If they are going
through a castration complex and are attempting to resolve it through
male identification, the event of menstruation destroys this type of reso-lution. Thus, menstruation heightens female adolescent problems of iden-
tity (stemming from the castration complex), apart from the other biological
and psychological complications it may produce.
1
These other biological and psychological factors, however, represent
relatively minor modifications of the basic themes of female criminality

female delinquency 309
which were proposed at the turn of the century. The dominant image
from this perspective remains that of inherent differences between malesand females that influence the degree and type of female involvement
in crime and delinquency.
Gender Roles and Delinquency
According to some, the major explanation of female deviance up to
the1960s was the Freudian perspective (Simon, 1975), although the
specific concept of castration complex was not always given as the major
underlying cause of such behavior. Actually, beginning in the 1950s,
another explanation of female offenses began to appear—the influenceof gender roles. Essentially, this explanation argues that women act andthink in accordance with the roles in society they have been taught
and are expected to play. From this perspective it is reasoned that
women are expected to be passive, orderly, motherly, and, if ambi-tious, wily and cunning, inasmuch as women are not likely to be freely
given occupational responsibilities and social power outside of the home
and family.
In some discussions, it is hard to distinguish between sex roles
considered natural and sex roles that are learned or acquired. The im-
portance of this perspective, however, lies in its contention that sexroles are taught and learned, not biologically influenced. While it is
certainly true that biological differences between males and females
exist, this approach maintains that acting as a male or female is expected
to behave is not necessarily inborn or biologically predisposed but,
instead, is influenced by cultural and social definitions that one learns
from early childhood. In other words, traits such as maleness andfemale-
nessare biological, whereas the concepts of masculinity andfemininity
are socially learned roles (Smart, 1976; Klein, 1979).
An earlier example of this approach to female criminality was of-
fered by Otto Pollak ( 1950), who argued that female involvement in
crime was greater than official estimates indicate because female crimi-nality is essentially masked or hidden. Besides being accorded a morechivalrous or protective attitude by criminal justice officials, females
are given roles in society that tend to isolate them from public view. In

310 theories of delinquency
some cases, the criminal behavior of women is private indeed, such as
with illegal abortions. In addition, Pollak argued that women partici-pate in crimes as accomplices, particularly with respect to property of-
fenses. Violent crimes by females, he maintained, are often committed
within the privacy of the home and involve methods that are hard todetect, such as poisoning.
Ruth Cavan and Theodore Ferdinand ( 1975) assert that delinquent
behavior among girls is associated with cultural values and social roles. Thesevalues and roles, moreover, are influenced by social class and ethnic back-
ground. The authors suggest that among middle-class girls the previously
taught values of sexual chastity and domestic happiness are being challenged,thus giving these girls and their parents confusing ideas about what consti-
tutes proper supervision and appropriate behavior. Should the girl be al-
lowed to spend the night with a boy, with or without the company ofpeers? Is it all right to let the juvenile experiment with drugs, especially
with other youth? Such issues as these may not only allow the middle-
class female adolescent to entertain new role expectations and social norms,but they may also serve to generate conflicts between her and her parents,
teachers, and more “conventional” peers. These conflicts may lead or fur-
ther push the teenage female into delinquency.
According to Cavan and Ferdinand, deviations from social expecta-
tions of sexual and moral conformity are more accepted among lower-class female juveniles than among middle-class girls. Delinquent acts suchas running away, sexual promiscuity, and ungovernability are thus some-
what expected of lower-class girls. However, they assert that among some
ethnic groups, such as Italians, sexual standards and morals are rigidlyenforced, even among those in the lower class, and sexual delinquencies
among girls in Italian-American neighborhoods are relatively rare.
These two examples of a sex-role perspective of female criminal-
ity are tinged with various considerations that tend to merge them withother explanations. Pollak’s analysis suggests that some of the charac-
teristics of female crime are biologically influenced. Cavan and Ferdinandessentially describe female delinquency in terms of sexual and moral
behavior, similar to the “adjustment” problems seen by Freud, Thomas,
and others to be so predominant among delinquent girls.
More sociological sex-role explanations of female delinquency have
been offered by George Grosser (cited by Gibbons, 1981:239–241) and

female delinquency 311
Albert J. Reiss ( 1960). According to Grosser, delinquent boys are predomi-
nantly involved in theft because stealing is daring and risky, masculine, as it
were, and that is what males are supposed to be. In addition, stolen goods
can be used to help support the masculine role of provider, such as paying
the way on dates. Females, on the other hand, tend to steal less often thanmales because stealing does not directly express the qualities of femininity
(although the incidence of theft among adolescent females is increasing).
Some girls may steal, however, because stolen property may help them tomaintain female appeal. Of course, these gender-role behavior patterns are
traditional, and not universal. Sutherland contends, for example, that among
Gypsies the woman is considered to be the primary economic providerfor the family, even if this means “hustling” for a living ( 1975:71–91).
Sexually promiscuous behavior among female adolescents was not
explained by Grosser in role terms. However, Reiss contends that sexualoffenses among females and males (particularly in the lower class) are a
means of expressing approved social roles with peers in the peer-oriented
adolescent society. Males engage in (consensual) sex acts with femalesbecause they gain status and prestige by so doing. Females engage in
sex because relationships with males are the primary source of status
and prestige among girls, and to develop relationships with boys, girlshave to often “give in” to the sexual demands of boys. The sexual
behavior of girls becomes a problem when complications result, such
as pregnancy or venereal disease, or when the behavior becomes toovisible in other ways. At that point, the girl risks losing her status and
reputation among both male and female peers, and additional involve-
ment in delinquency may result. In essence, sexual promiscuity is gen-erally seen as a problem or an instance of delinquency when it is
committed by females more than when it pertains to males. While this
last scenario is reminiscent of Thomas’ unadjusted girl syndrome, therole implications of Reiss’ explanation are clear.
Women’s Emancipation
During the 1970s, a number of books and articles appeared that attrib-
uted an increase in female crime in the United States to the increased
participation of women in the labor force, as well as to the general

312 theories of delinquency
emancipation and liberation of women from traditional domestic and
sexual behavior roles (Adler, 1975; Simon, 1975; Smart, 1976; Klein and
Kress, 1979). The argument in essence has been that, as women become
freer to develop their individual potentials and to achieve their goals inlife, they simultaneously become exposed to the crime-inducing frustra-tions and stresses of life that have characterized the male experience for
years, as well as to increased opportunities to commit crime. The current
“women’s movement,” as such, is generally regarded as having started inthe early to mid- 1960s, contemporaneously with civil rights and antiwar
demonstrations (Adler, 1975; Simon, 1975), although most accounts rec-
ognize earlier efforts to allow women greater economic and political in-volvement, such as the suffrage movement of the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries.
Indeed, the recognition of the effects of increased freedom for
women on female crime rates is evident in the work of Lombroso, asmentioned above, as well as others writing around that time (Bonger,
1916). In addition, the previously discussed work of Pollak directed
considerable attention to the criminological effects of increased par-
ticipation of women in the labor force. In fact. Pollak asserts that a rise
in female crime because of the emancipation of women has been pre-dicted by criminologists since at least the 1870s.
Discussions of the connection between increased freedom for
women and a subsequent rise in crime rates have often suggested thatthe increase will largely occur with property crimes, although some con-
tend that an increase in other crimes, by females, including drug offenses
and violence, can be expected to occur as the women’s liberation move-ment continues (Adler, 1975; Smart, 1976).
For the most part, these accounts of the relationship between fe-
male criminality and the emancipation of women leave out the connec-tion with juvenile delinquency. Freda Adler ( 1975), however, maintains
that the results of increased freedom and changing gender roles for womencan be seen among girls as well. To a large extent, Adler suggests thatyounger females emulate their mothers or older sisters in their quest for
increased freedom. Thus, all of the different types of crime that may be
expected of adult women may be expected of girls as well.
While she argues that one of the changes the liberation move-
ment has created for adolescent girls is in the area of sexual behavior

female delinquency 313
(recall the previous discussion of Cavan and Ferdinand’s analysis of
middle-class female delinquency), Adler claims that the effects havebeen most notable in two areas: ( 1) a general imitation of masculine
behavior, as evidenced in greater involvement in fighting and gangbehavior, and ( 2) an increased rate of delinquency in general, as the
confusion accompanying liberation adds to the turmoil and uncertainty
of an already troubled period of life—adolescence. In connection with
violent crime and delinquent behavior changes, Adler indicates an in-crease in gang involvement among girls, both in their traditional role as
accomplices to male gangs and as members of exclusive female gangs
or cliques. In addition, she points to numerous and varied violent epi-sodes among girls in general, such as reformatory rioting and aggressive
political protesting.
In summary, whether girls are seen as becoming more violent, the
general hypotheses of the emancipation explanation of female delin-quency are that rates of female delinquency will be greater in more
industrialized and technologically “advanced” societies and that increasesin these rates can be traced to the rise of the women’s liberation move-
ment, especially as this movement has blurred the traditional distinc-
tions between masculine and feminine roles.
Evaluation
The idea that females and males behave according to innate charac-
teristics has been challenged for some time. That females are innatelypassive, naive, cunning, or anything else is arguable with respect to
the various learning theories of the social and behavioral sciences. Of
course, modern biological theories stress that an interaction betweenphysical predispositions and sociocultural conditions produce behavior.
Even this position, however, is not totally accepted by those who
emphasize the importance of environmental factors in the explana-tion of behavior.
A common notion of the naturalistic explanation of female
delinquency is that such behavior is caused, or associated with,adjustment problems, particularly those stemming from the home
environment. To some extent, the literature supports this view.

314 theories of delinquency
Numerous accounts of female delinquency have stressed what may
be called a “wayward girl” syndrome, in which the delinquent girlis characterized as having difficulties at home, becoming incorri-
gible or “ungovernable,” running away from home, becoming or
suspected of becoming sexually promiscuous, and perhaps ulti-mately becoming involved in various acts of criminal behavior
(Glueck and Glueck, 1934; Konopka, 1966; Vedder and Somerville,
1975). In addition, several studies have noted that there is a stronger
relationship between broken homes and family relationships andofficial measures of delinquency among females than males (Gib-
bons and Griswold, 1957; Monahan, 1957 ; Toby, 1957). Other
investigations have found that female delinquency (as measured
by self-reports) is more strongly related to family factors than is
male delinquency, especially for status offenses, such as ungov-ernability and running away (Nye, 1958; Datesman and Scarpitti,
1975; Norland et al., 1979).
The validity of the wayward girl syndrome ultimately rests on the
extent to which girls actually do commit status offenses. Official esti-
mates of female delinquency have consistently associated the delinquent
girl with such offenses as running away and incorrigibility, offenses whichfit the pattern of being wayward (Barton, 1976; Cernkovich and
Giordano, 1979a; Gibbons, 1981; Richards, 1981; Empey, 1982; Weis,
1982). While the results of self-report surveys indicate that, overall, males
are more delinquent than females, the difference is mostly attributable
to the greater involvement of males in property and violent offenses.
Differences between males and females with respect to status offensesare negligible or indicate greater involvement among males than females.
In a study of delinquency among a sample of nearly 600 middle-class
high school students in Connecticut, for example, Nancy Wise ( 1967)
found that the proportion of males admitting to sex and alcohol of-fenses was about the same as for females, one-third and between 50
and60 percent, respectively. The percentage of males who admitted
to being ungovernable, however, was nearly twice the figure for fe-males, 26.6 to 13.7 percent. The percentages of boys involved in theft
and violent offenses were greater than for females, which yielded a
higher overall rate of delinquency for males than for females (see also,
Hindelang, 1971). A comparative analysis by Rachelle Canter ( 1982b)

female delinquency 315
suggests that the findings of Wise and others have been replicated in
different parts of the country and over a period of at least 10 years (see
also, Barton and Figueira-McDonough, 1985; Chesney-Lind and
Shelden, 1992).
The results of these self-report surveys suggest that the official data
concerning female delinquency are correct, but incomplete. Female
delinquents do often commit status offenses, but no more than do males.
Certainly, many female delinquents have difficulties at home and be-come involved in numerous status offenses in connection with those
problems. The high proportions of female status offenders in juvenile
courts and institutions, however, must be accounted for in terms ofsocietal reactions to the behavior, as well as the behavior itself. It could
well be that a stereotype of the delinquent girl as wayward and pro-
miscuous is associated not only with the theoretical explanation ofpsychological and biological problems of adjustment but, also, with of-
ficial decisions concerning what to do with disobedient or runaway
girls. Clearly, the data suggest that additional theories and informationare needed for a fuller understanding of female delinquency.
To some extent, the gender-role explanation of female delinquency
has been supported with research that investigates social expectations ofbehavior as these are differentiated by sexual status. Ruth Morris ( 1965),
for example, studied the connection between social role expectationsand delinquency among males and females. Overall, Morris found thatgirls expressed more shame and guilt than boys over having been in trouble
with the police. In addition, she found that girls were more critical of
delinquency than boys, especially delinquency committed by boys. Thesefindings suggest that females are socialized into greater conformity and
less delinquency than males. When females commit acts of delinquency,
they are essentially violating feminine social role expec tations.
A more specific test of female delinquency from a social role per-
spective is provided by a test of the “masculinity hypothesis,” whichsuggests that females who commit delinquent acts are conforming tothe masculine role more than are nondelinquent girls (Cullen et al.,
1979). Numerous tests of the masculinity hypothesis have provided
conflicting results. A study of self-reported delinquency among male
and female midwestern university students, for example, found that
those who scored high on such “masculine” traits as aggressiveness,

316 theories of delinquency
dominance, competition, and independence tended to have high lev-
els of delinquency (Cullen et al., 1979). The relationship between de-
linquency and masculine traits, moreover, was stronger for males than
for females. Being male and having relatively high levels of masculinity
were more likely to coincide with delinquent behavior than were beingfemale and having masculine expectations. A similar conclusion was
reached in another self-report study of delinquency in Nashville
(Thornton and James, 1979). Additional analysis of these data indicated,
however, that masculine views (including such items as who will pay
the way on dates and who will provide the most income and make
“major” family decisions in marriage) were less related to delinquencythan the possession of feminine characteristics (such as expecting to
do housework and caring for a family, telling parents about one’s where-
abouts on dates, and relocating according to a spouse’s work). Accept-ing feminine expectations was associated with low rates of self-admitted
property offenses for both males and females and with lower rates of
aggressive offenses for females. Masculine role attitudes were not sig-nificantly related to delinquency for either sex (Shover et al., 1979).
One of the difficulties of the sex-role explanation of delinquency,
however, is that it cannot account for the changes in gender-role orien-
tations and expectations and, thus, for changes in patterns of delin-
quency. Basically, it is the attempt to account for such variations that
separates the gender-role explanation of female delinquency from theemancipation theory.
A central issue of the emancipation argument is whether female
crime rates have increased during the years the contemporary women’sliberation movement is thought to have occurred ( 1960s to the present).
Assessments of both official and self-report measures of crime and de-linquency support the contention that female involvement in crimi-nality has increased during the last 30 years or so (Adler, 1975; Simon,
1975; Steffensmeier and Steffensmeier, 1980; Empey, 1982; Leonard,
1982; Chesney-Lind and Shelden, 1992). Most of this increase has oc-
curred in the areas of theft and drug use, contrary to Adler’s predic-
tion that female crime rates would rise for several different types of
crime. Furthermore, reports of widespread increases in female partici-pation in violent gangbehavior are unconfirmed by studies that have
attempted to document this type of delinquent activity (Miller, 1975;

female delinquency 317
Chesney-Lind and Shelden, 1992,1998: Chapter 4; Steffensmeier and
Allan, 1996).2 As Chesney-Lind and Shelden observe, female delin-
quency has not changed much in the past two decades, whether de-
linquency is measured according to self-report studies or according to
official statistics. Females still typically commit nonviolent offenses(1998:239–241).
To attribute this increase in female crime and delinquency to the
women’s movement, however, is debatable for several reasons. First,the increase occurred largely before the 1970s, when the effects of the
movement would not have been at their height, and leveled off insubsequent years, when the impact of the movement would be ex-pected to have increased (Steffensmeier and Steffensmeier, 1980). This
conclusion is also reached by researchers examining arrest data in En-gland and Wales over the years 1951–1979 (Box and Hale, 1983).
Second, no consistent evidence has appeared that connects rising
female crime rates with rising levels of industrialization and socioeco-nomic development (Simon, 1975; Steffensmeier et al., 1989).
Third, the unique connection between liberation attitudes toward
the feminine role and female delinquency has not been established(Smart, 1976). In order to establish a specific connection between a
social movement and behavior changes, it is important, although not
necessary, to document the influence of the movement’s ideas and goals
on those whose behavior is thought to be associated with them. Withrespect to the women’s movement and female delinquency, it has been
pointed out that some indices of female liberation, such as employ-
ment opportunities, may have relatively little relevance for girls (Giordanoand Cernkovich, 1979). In addition, the association between self-
reported delinquency and liberated attitudes toward female roles hasnot been consistently documented. In fact, in some instances, thosegirls who express traditional female sex-role views are moredelinquent
than females who espouse liberated opinions (Giordano and Cernkovich,1979; see also, Giordano, 1978). Of course, it is possible for a move-
ment to influence general behavior patterns without affecting any par-
ticular individual. In the present case, however, a presumed
consequence of the women’s movement—liberated attitudes amongfemales—is found not to be associated with relatively high rates of female
delinquency.
3

318 theories of delinquency
Thus, while the women’s liberation movement offers a general
explanation of changing female gender roles and increases of crime and
delinquency among women, a documented connection between the
two has not been established (Chesney-Lind and Shelden, 1998:22).
Indications of increasing arrest rates of juvenile females in the United
States may alter these conclusions regarding the validity of the emanci-
pation theory of female delinquency. These increases in arrest rates,
however, may be no more than a temporary trend. While there weresignificant increases in female juvenile arrests during the early 1990s,
these were reversed in the late ’ 90s into the early 2000s (Chesney-Lind
and Pasko, 2004: Chapter 3). Moreover, Chesney-Lind and Pasko force-
fully argue that female delinquency, including involvement in gang
activities, is no more violent than it was decades ago, despite news
accounts to the contrary. Females are still more often arrested for sta-tus offending and property crimes, compared to violent crimes, and
their involvement in crime in general is substantially lower than that of
male youth. Rather, what seems to be stable in the lives of females,especially female offenders, is abuse and violence from males in their
lives and the uncaring, disdainful, and sometimes abusive responses from
institutional authorities, including legal authorities, to their genderedresponses to such violence (Chapters 3–6). In addition, any changes in
female crime and arrest rates which do occur may be attributable to anumber of factors other than to the liberation thesis, as Steffensmeierand Streifel cogently argue ( 1993:75–94; see also Steffensmeier and
Haynie, 2000).
Continued analyses provide additional questions on the accuracy
of the emancipation theory to explain increases in juvenile female ar-
rest rates. Several studies, in the United States and other countries, have
concluded that increases in female, including juvenile female, arrest ratesduring the 1990s and early 2000s, and reductions in the gender gap
between male and female arrests, are more attributable to changes inofficial reactions to female criminality than to increased opportunitiesfor crime among women, as predicted by the female emancipation
theory (Steffensmeier et al., 2005; Carrington, 2006; Schwartz and
Rookey, 2008; Zahn et al., 2008). These studies have used a variety of
data sources, including arrest data, self-report information, and victim-ization data and have examined criminal behavior from serious violent

female delinquency 319
crimes to drunk driving. The results clearly indicate that increases in
female arrest rates, compared to male arrest rates, result more fromchanges in attitudes of the police, other social control agents, and so-
ciety in general than from changes in motivations and opportunities
for committing crime among women, juvenile or adult. As the authorsof one study say, “ Ironically, women’s liberation may have had greater
effects on law enforcement practices than on women’s drunk-driving
behaviors” (Schwartz and Rookey, 2008:662).
However, the changes in perceptions of female offending go fur-
ther than law enforcement. Steffensmeir et al. ( 2005), for example, iden-
tify societal policy shifts that may increase the criminal and juvenilejustice “net” of females as well as lead to a reduction in the gender gap
of arrests, especially with respect to violent crimes. These changes in-
clude increased media attention to and public concerns regarding fe-male crime, involvement of females in juvenile gangs, increased efforts
to identify offenders, including females, earlier in their lives and to
involve them in prevention programs, and decreased juvenile male crimi-nality, because of suppressive and preventive efforts. As they conclude,
“The analysis here, based on the best available data, makes a strong case
for the position that it is the cumulative effect of these policy shifts,rather than a change in girls’ behavior toward more violence, that ac-
counts for their higher arrest rates and the narrowing of the gender
gap in official counts of violent crime. The rise in girls’ violence, itappears then, is more a social construction than an empirical reality”
(pp.396–397). A similar conclusion was reached by another study of
violence among juvenile females (Zahn et al., 2008:15). Thus, while
increases in female arrest rates may seem to offer support for the fe-male emancipation explanation of crime and delinquency, closer ex-
amination of the data indicates that increased willingness of police andother officials to arrest and otherwise label females as offenders is more
responsible for arrest rate increases among females, relative to males.
This conclusion would apply to other singular explanations of femalecrime and delinquency as well. At this point, then, the validity of fe-
male emancipation as an explanation of female delinquency is still ques-
tioned, but not yet completely refuted.
In the course of sorting out the influence of gender-role changes
on female criminality, several commentators have suggested the

320 theories of delinquency
importance of other factors that have traditionally been associated with
male delinquency. The previously discussed study by Peggy Giordanoand Stephen Cernkovich, for example, indicated that peer relations,
especially in mixed-sex group contexts, play a more important part in
the explanation of female delinquency than do liberated attitudes(1979).
4 In another study of female delinquency, Cernkovich and
Giordano indicate that the perception that there are fewer general op-portunities for advancement is more related to delinquency than areblocked opportunities that result from sex discrimination ( 1979b; see
also, Datesman et al., 1975). However, feelings of strain are not neces-
sarily linked with liberated attitudes (Leiber et al., 1994).
In addition, evidence exists in support of social control factors as an
important part in the explanation of female delinquency. Besides the in-fluence of family factors, some research suggests that other control vari-ables, such as lack of commitment to conventional goals and attachment
to school, contribute significantly to delinquency among females (Duke
and Duke, 1978; Thornton and James, 1979).
Since adjustment problems stemming from family situations have
been associated with female delinquency for a long time, it is logicalthat control variables in general are presumed to be strongly related todelinquency among girls, especially since social control theory has be-
come the subject of considerable interest (see Chapter 8). The specific
effect of control variables on female delinquency, however, may still
not account for differences in rates of delinquency between males and
females. For example, Gary Jensen and Raymond Eve ( 1976) utilized
the same data set on which Hirschi developed his social control theory
of delinquency among males and analyzed the data for females. While
their analysis supported control theory hypotheses (that is, girls who
are more attached to family and school admitted to fewer acts of de-linquency), males were more involved in delinquency than females re-
gardless of the degree of attachment to families, schools, and so on. A
similar conclusion is reached by Barton and Figueira-McDonough(1985). Obviously, many other factors, certainly including those previ-
ously discussed in this chapter, must be considered if an adequate un-derstanding of the etiology of female delinquency is to be obtained.
The search for an explanation of male and female delinquency that
can explain the “gender gap” continues. The particular theoretical

female delinquency 321
explanation, however, is not uniformly identified by scholars. Some, for
example, make a strong case for the power of differential associationtheory, or peer relationships (see Chapter 7), as the critical variable in the
explanation of delinquency among boys and girls (Mears et al., 1998;
Hartjen and Priyadarsini, 2003). Other research indicates that the key
factor is role-taking, or gender identification (Heimer, 1996). Some ar-
gue that the explanation of the gender gap is to be found in Agnew’srevised strain theory, which was discussed in Chapter 5 (Broidy and
Agnew, 1997; Hoffman and Su, 1997), while others (Burton et al., 1998;
LaGrange and Silverman, 1999) analyze the gender gap using self-con-
trol theory (see Chapter 12). Still others feel there are several factors, such
as a strong social bond, associations with delinquent peers, and negative
sanctions in the school or by the police, that explain the gender gap (Liu
and Kaplan, 1999).
Most of these explanations conclude that while there may be a
single—or a single combined—explanation of male and female delin-quency, the gap in offender rates, which consistently indicates higherincidences of delinquency among males, particularly for serious crimi-
nal offenses, can be explained by how males and females differ in han-
dling a particular contributing factor. For example, in presenting a casefor the influence of role-taking in the explanation of delinquency,
Karen Heimer ( 1996) maintains that factors such as associations with
deviant peer groups, commitments to family and friends, and attach-
ments to family all contribute to delinquency, but indirectly, through
role-taking behaviors. More specifically, Heimer says that identifica-
tion with a female gender role reduces delinquency among girls, butidentification with a masculine identity, or definition, does not reduce
delinquency among males (p. 56).
Mears et al. ( 1998) argue that association with delinquent peers is
one of the stronger explanations of male and female delinquency.However, these authors suggest the influence of delinquent peers is
offset, at least partially, among young women by their prior socializa-tion, which stresses the acceptance of moral values, even in the face of
deviant peer pressure. Using the logic of control theory (see Chapter 8),
it could be argued that females have a stronger sense of internal controls
protecting against delinquency, even when powerful prodelinquency
forces are present in their lives.

322 theories of delinquency
In a related vein, Agnew and Brezina ( 1997) suggest that young
men are more susceptible to the strains and pressures of delinquent
peers than are girls. The speculation is that males resent peer pressure,
and react negatively to it, in the form of “moral outrage,” while fe-
males tend to internalize these pressures, or to see the side of others, inways that reduce delinquency (pp. 104–105). This position is similar to
the conclusions of Chandy et al. ( 1996), who examined the effects of
sexual abuse on juvenile males and females. According to this study,sexual abuse is internalized among women, and can lead to suicide ide-
ation (thoughts of killing oneself), drug use, and eating disorders. Among
males, however, reactions to sexual abuse tended to be externalizedmore in the form of delinquent behavior, academic problems, and more
frequent and unsafe sex practices (pp. 1222–1228). Thus, there may be
common factors underlying the explanation of male and female delin-
quency, but the gender gap is to be explained by the manner in which
males and females adjust to or react to those contributing factors (see
also, Steffensmeier and Allan, 1996).
Some are couching this discussion within the comparisons of social
bond theory (Chapter 8), self-control theory and turning points, or de-
velopmental, explanations of delinquency (Chapters 3,4, and 12). W.
Alex Mason and Michael Windle ( 2002), for example, test whether male
and female delinquency are influenced by self-control factors, social bondfactors, or developmental variables. Their conclusion is that low self-control does seem to explain major forms of female delinquency (that is,
serious offending among girls), but that social bond variables, particularly
attachments to family, school, and delinquent peers, offer a better expla-nation of minor patterns of delinquency among females. For males, how-
ever, the patterns are mixed, for both types of offenses. Among males,
the findings support all three perspectives. While the authors note thatassociations with delinquent peers is the “most potent mediator” be-
tween early patterns of deviance and later manifestations of delinquency,
male delinquency is also explained by low self-control as well as devel-opmental factors (pp. 503–506).
The consideration of traditional explanations of delinquency has
also been studied in relationship to the prevention, or “resilience,” ofdelinquency among females. For example, one analysis concluded that
“school connectedness,” that is, having positive feelings towards schools

female delinquency 323
and school officials, did not help to prevent offending among juvenile
females. However, having good grades in school did help to preventfemale delinquency among girls who had been physically abused. This
study concluded, however, that the “most consistent protective ef-
fect,” relative to female delinquency, was the presence of a “caringadult.” Even this factor, however, was not effective for high-risk ado-
lescent females (Hawkins et al., 2009).
Despite the interest in seeking a “common” cause of delin-
quency among males and females, some, such as Chesney-Lind andShelden ( 1998), continue to remind us that behavior among young
women must be understood from the context of growing up fe-
male in a male-dominated world (pp. 111–123,242–243). They, too,
maintain that socialization into the “feminine” role tends to pre-vent delinquency, but experiences which are more common amongwomen can be the catalyst for delinquency among girls. In particu-
lar, Chesney-Lind and Shelden identify sexual abuse against a girl
as a major factor in the explanation of female delinquency. In ad-dition, these authors suggest that girls from disadvantaged back-
grounds have a more difficult time living up to the “middle-class”
standard of femininity, including beauty and popularity, especiallyamong school peers. Subsequent attempts to negotiate the objec-
tive of becoming feminine, and of handling other adolescent pres-
sures, may result in delinquent behavior for these girls (p. 123).
Power-Control Theory
John Hagan and his associates, A. R. Gillis and John Simpson, have ad-
vanced what they call a “power-control theory” to explain femaledelinquency or, more appropriately, relatively less serious, “common”
types of illegal activity (Hagan et al., 1985,1987).
Essentially, the argument is that the structure of the occupa-
tional system divides the populace into those who control and thosewho are controlled. Furthermore, the theory argues that mothers
are the primary socializing agents of children in the family, espe-cially girls. However, what is taught to children is influenced by
the economic, power position the household head has in the

324 theories of delinquency
workplace. When one has power over others at work, she or he
and her or his spouse will also be in control of children (especially
girls) at home. However, because of the power exercised at work,
these parents will be more likely to excuse deviant behavior by their
children and to increase the “taste for risk” among their offspring,
especially male youth. According to Hagan et al., power and con-
trol are thought to be directly related to social class, “freedom to
deviate is directly related to class position,” and “males are freer todeviate than are females”; therefore, “males are freest to deviate in
the higher classes” (Hagan et al., 1985:1155). These males will be
free to deviate not only because their influential parents allow them
greater latitude of behavior, but also because these youth will not
perceive sanctions for their deviance to be a realistic threat.
These ideas were tested by Hagan et al. ( 1985) on a sample of 458
Canadian adolescent students, using a self-report survey of delinquency.The occupational position of the head of the household was catego-
rized as employer, manager (both considered controllers), workers andsurplus population, or the unemployed (both considered controlled).
The results of their analysis lead Hagan et al. to conclude that no
relationship exists between delinquency and socioeconomic statusperse ( 1985:1167–1168). However, they did find that the difference in
the rate of delinquency between males and females was greatest in fami-
lies headed by employers, and this difference narrowed with each oc-cupational classification ( 1985:1170). This finding is supportive of the
predictions of Willem Bonger, a neo-Marxist criminologist writing inthe early twentieth century (see Chapter 10 ). These results are also sup-
portive of power-control theory.
Further analyses added additional support to the theory. For ex-
ample, Hagan and his associates found that mothers were the principalcontrol figures in the home, especially for daughters (p. 1172). In addi-
tion, they conclude that adolescent males in the employer class are themost delinquent (and more delinquent than females) because “theyare less controlled by their mothers and less likely to perceive the risks
of getting punished as threatening” (p. 1173).
Overall, the statement and test of power-control theory by Hagan
et al. in 1985 was more an exposition of the differences between male
and female rates of delinquency by class position. The conclusions they

female delinquency 325
reached, furthermore, addressed the motivations for delinquency among
upper-middle-class males.
In an effort to extend power-control theory more specifically to
female delinquency, Hagan, Simpson, and Gillis reconceptualized theirdata by concentrating on the power relations of occupational posi-tions of husband andwife, and of female-headed households (Hagan
et al., 1987). The reconceptualization divided families into patriar-
chal and egalitarian structures. Patriarchal families are headed by maleswho are employed in a position of authority (or power) while the
wife is not employed outside the home. The egalitarian family is one
in which both husband and wife have jobs encompassing authorityover others. The prediction relative to these family divisions is that
female delinquency (common delinquency) will increase, and become
more equal to the extent of male delinquency within egalitarian fami-lies. In addition, Hagan et al. suggest that female delinquency will be
higher in female-headed households because females will be freer to
deviate in these families (since there would be a lack of “power im-balance between parents,” p. 793). As stated, this version of power-
control theory represents an extension of the liberation theory offemale delinquency, discussed earlier in this chapter, by pointing tothe relationship between employment conditions and socialization
patterns of mothers, relative to fathers—the “class dynamics of the
family,” as Hagan et al. (p. 791) put it.
This version of power-control theory was tested by Hagan and
his colleagues through follow-up contacts with the parents of the youthsurveyed in the earlier analysis, in an effort to collect employment in-formation about the mothers. Based on the new conceptualization of
employment, Hagan et al. divide the patriarchal and egalitarian families
into several subtypes. Patriarchal families, for example, include those inwhich the father is employed, regardless of level of authority, while
the mother is not employed. Egalitarian families include those in which
both father and mother are employed in occupations that involve similarlevels of authority. The situations of an unemployed father and an
employed mother or of father-only homes are not considered because
of the small number of such cases.
The basic assumption of the power-control theory, again, is that
“authority in the workplace is translated into power in the household”

326 theories of delinquency
(p.798). Furthermore, the theory assumes that the treatment of boys
and girls will be similar in egalitarian homes, and that female rates of
delinquency will be correspondingly high among these families, regard-
less of the overall socioeconomic status of the family. As such, this variant
of power-control theory is less concerned with Marxistconceptualizations of the overall influence of the marketplace than with
therelative locations of father and mother vis-à-vis the market and the
home (p. 815).
Power-control theory further proposes that mothers are the major
sources of socialization in the patriarchal family, and that the primary
object of control in this family is the daughter. This control and super-vision are thought to decrease a “taste for risk” in the child, and also to
increase the youth’s perception of punishment as a threat to his or her
behavior. These factors are conceived as intervening between the struc-ture of the family and delinquency. They are used to explain the asso-
ciations between family occupational situation, gender, and delinquency.
The results of the analysis by Hagan et al. ( 1987) tend to verify the
power-control theory of female delinquency. In the patriarchal fami-lies, mothers were the primary instruments of control and daughters
were the main objects of supervision. In egalitarian and female-headedhouseholds, mothers were still important instruments of control, and
daughters were the objects, but the relationships were not as strong as
within patriarchal families. In addition, taste for risk and perceptions ofpunishment were associated with delinquency, in predicted directions.
Daringness was higher among males than females, and girls perceived
greater risk from delinquency than did boys (pp. 802–803). However,
these relationships were particularly strong within patriarchal families.
Finally, differentials in delinquency rates between males and females
were much greater for patriarchal families than for egalitarian or female-headed households, and this primarily occurred because female delin-
quency increased within the latter two types of families (pp. 803–807,
810). The authors conclude, “The implication is that daughters are fre-
est to be delinquent in families in which mothers either share powerequally with fathers or do not share power with fathers at all” (p. 812).
5
A replicative test of power-control theory presented evidence
which supported many of its predictions, but extended the scope ofanalysis (Singer and Levine, 1988). This study addressed the influence

female delinquency 327
of peer relations on delinquency, specifically by examining “group risk”
(p.629). The study was conducted with 705 public and private Ameri-
can suburban high school youth and 560 parents. Measures of family
structure, risk orientation, and delinquency were similar to those usedby Hagan et al., with the exception of adding a “measure of attitudestoward group risk-taking” (p. 630).
The results of Singer and Levine’s analysis were similar to those of
Hagan and his associates. Several of the predictions of power-controltheory were supported. Boys were subject to less control than were
girls, maternal control was more pronounced with girls than with boys,
and boys had a greater “risk preference” and less perceived risk com-pared with girls ( 1988:635). However, contrary to Hagan et al., Singer
and Levine found these relationships were stronger in egalitarian fami-lies, rather than in patriarchal ones (p. 635,637). Moreover, girls ex-
pressed a higher level of group risk than did boys in patriarchal families,
contrary to power-control theory (p. 637). In addition, boys were more
delinquent than girls in egalitarian households (p. 639), again contrary
to predictions.
Essentially, Singer and Levine’s study provides mixed support for
power-control theory. As a possible explanation of the contradictoryresults, they suggest that group risk taking (or subcultural) factors may
influence an adolescent’s reaction(s) to control and supervision efforts
utilized by parents. For example, in egalitarian, or balanced, families malesmight resent the intru sive power of mothers, and women in general, in
their lives. Their dissatisfaction with this type of female dominance mightcontribute to higher rates of delinquency among such males, particu-larly within a group context. Power-control theory may generally be
accurate, therefore, but applicable in different ways in varying social
contexts.
In an effort to specify the types of familial control exercised rela-
tive to males and females, Hill and Atkinson ( 1988) examined a part of
power-control theory by using such concepts as parental support (pa-ternal and maternal), appearance rules, and curfew rules. Support is
measured by indications of a juvenile’s relationship with a father or
mother (such as perceived parental understanding). Appearance andcurfew rules refer to parental expectations relative to a juvenile’s per-
sonal appearance and homebound schedule, respectively.

328 theories of delinquency
Using a self-report delinquency scale with a sample of 3110 ado-
lescent youth in Illinois, Hill and Atkinson conclude that parental sup-
port is inversely related to delinquency among males, while maternal
support inhibits female delinquent behavior. Furthermore, parental
support is more strongly associated with delinquency (inversely) thanis either set of rules. However, boys are more deterred by appearance
rules, while girls’ behavior is more affected by curfew expectations (1988 ,
137–140). Thus, they argue that females are notthe objects of control
efforts more than are males; rather, girls and boys are subject to differ-ent types of controls, enforced by same-sex parents (p. 143).
Another feature of power-control theory is its assumption that
common forms of delinquency are positively related to social class forboth males and females. As mentioned in the previous chapter, many
scholars are of the opinion that class plays a relatively small role in theexplanation of delinquency. A similar conclusion has been reached by
Jensen and Thompson, who maintain that patterns of delinquency
among national samples of youth in the United States simply do notcorrespond to the class-related predictions of power-control theory
(Jensen and Thompson, 1990), although Hagan et al. ( 1990) challenge
this conclusion.
Furthermore, Morash and Chesney-Lind ( 1991) challenge some of
the basic assumptions of power-control theory, as well as its class-related
implications. Their contention is that, from a feminist perspective, nur-turing parents and caregivers to children, including female youth, may
be more common among women, but not necessarily so. Fathers, for
example, might be more actively involved than mothers in the controlof daughters’ movements and relationships with males. In their view,
power-control theory needs to be “reformulated” to accommodate these
kinds of differences and the implications of these patterns for delinquency.
Upon examining a national sample of over 1400 youth, Morash and
Chesney-Lind conclude that mother’s place in the workforce has rela-tively little to do with delinquency, for males or females. However, fam-ily structure influences types of controls for both sexes, particularly when
stepfathers are present. Also, girls are consistently less delinquent than
boys, regardless of social class position or type of family system. Actually,delinquency among females is greater in lower-class families than in higher-
status situations, although controls are decreased for girls in upper-class

female delinquency 329
families (pp. 368–370). An interesting finding of this study is that child-
rearing by mothers who are nurturing results in greater identification with
the mother and reduced involvement in delinquency, while child-rearing
by fathers tends to generate negative sanctions, which are related to higher
rates of delinquency. Furthermore, the pattern of father involvement inchild-rearing, followed by negative sanctions and then delinquency, is
associated with both male and female delinquency (pp. 365–374).
All these studies certainly call for modifications and
reconceptualizations in power-control theory as originally presentedby Hagan and associates. In fairness to Hagan et al., some of these stud-
ies, such as those by Jensen and Thompson and Morash and Chesney-Lind, do not always use workplace classifications, or family structure
measures, in strict accordance with the conceptualizations and meth-
odologies proposed in power-control theory, and these inconsisten-cies could distort the findings of these studies (Hagan et al., 1990). It
would seem evident at this point in time, however, that power-con-trol theory, while offering an interesting perspective, needs to be con-siderably revised and more thoroughly examined before any definitive
conclusions can be reached regarding its contribution to the explana-
tion of female delinquency. One possible modification would be toexamine the tenets of power-control theory within the context of social
control or bond theory (Hagan et al., 1993).
Continued investigations into the validity of power-control theory
indicate that the original notion of Hagan and associates, that the single-mother family is an example of an egalitarian family, is questionable.
Leiber and Wacker ( 1997), for instance, studied the predictions of
power-control theory with two samples of juveniles living in single-
mother households, one in Seattle, Washington, and the other in Iowa.
In neither sample did the results support the theory. Rather, in bothcases, the data support the importance of peer associations in the ex-
planation of delinquency (pp. 342–344).
Continued research into power control theory is beginning to fill
in the gaps, so to speak, in terms of male and female reactions to punish-ment and supervision efforts of parents and legal authorities (Blackwell,
2000), impact of within-family interactions, including same-sex or op-
posite-sex sibling patterns and attachment between parents and children
(Blackwell and Reed, 2003). In addition, alternative arrangements of

330 theories of delinquency
family structures on female delinquency are being studied. Stepfamilies,
for example, appear to be similar to natural families in terms of powerstructure and supervision in the family. In addition, single-parent fami-
lies headed by fathers may be less controlling than dual-parent struc-
tures, and whites may experience less controls than nonwhites (Bateset al., 2003). In addition, some studies are beginning to document the
changing nature of female delinquency with respect to risk-taking. Forexample, a study of intergenerational patterns of male and female delin-quency in Australia indicates that levels of risk-taking are increasing for
females and that differences in risk-taking among males and females are
decreasing (Abbott-Chapman et al., 2008). This study also finds that binge
drinking and alcoholic consumption are especially increasing among con-
temporary adolescent females, compared to their mothers. While this study
does not specifically examine the tenets of power-control theory, its find-ings do speak to the issue of risk-taking and its relationship to delin-
quency among males and females. It should be remembered, however,
that while research is ongoing, more studies are needed before clear
patterns will begin to emerge.
There are still other family-related issues to be addressed, such as
joint-custody arrangements, sibling interactions, and the like. Further-
more, more precise specifications of influences on parental control
methods need to be introduced in order to assess more accurately the
particular influence(s) of occupational position on parenting. Includedhere would be background characteristics such as education, age, geo-
graphical location, race and ethnicity, and other social factors which
are known to affect behavior. In addition, thus far, the theory has beenapplied mainly to relatively minor acts of delinquency. To what extent
it would contribute to an understanding of serious criminal activity is
not known. It is also important to note that raising children to takerisks may not always equate with delinquency, but with more pro-social
ideas and behavior patterns (Uggen, 2000).
Feminist Explanations of Female Delinquency
The development of what have become known as “feminist” theories has
also contributed to a greater understanding of female delinquency.

female delinquency 331
According to Meda Chesney-Lind ( 1989:20), a feminist theory of female
criminality is based on the idea that females are positioned in society in
ways which produce vulnerability to victimization by males, including abuse
and the negative effects of poverty (see also, Chesney-Lind and Shelden,
1992:80–81). However, the impact of sexual abuse on the delinquency of
females is neither simple nor always direct, and may be delayed, in terms
of affecting adult female criminality more than delinquency (Siegel and
Williams, 2003). Moreover, a feminist perspective addresses the reactions
of females to male domination, from the context of women.
However, the literature on this subject indicates the presence of
several varieties of “feminist” explanations of female delinquency(Simpson, 1989; Messerschmidt, 1993). One issue is the source of the
domination and oppression of women by men. If the disadvantagedposition of women is attributed to gender-role differences, then thefeminist perspective is often referred to as “liberal” feminism (Simpson,
1989:607; Steffensmeier et al., 1989; Messerschmidt, 1993:23–25). A
“radical feminist” perspective emphasizes the structured domination,
often physical, of men over women, in a patriarchal society (Simpson,
1989:607–608; Messerschmidt, 1993 :32–54). Marxist-feminist theory
focuses on the negative impact of capitalism on male-female relation-
ships, and the pressures on women to resort to criminal behavior in
an attempt to gain greater control of their lives relative to males
(Radosh, 1993). Others, however, such as Greenberg ( 1993), main-
tain that the term “Marxist-feminist” is a misnomer because Marx never
developed a theory of female behavior, feminist or otherwise, although
Greenberg does see some utility in pursuing an analysis of femalecrime and delinquency from a labor-force perspective.
Socialist-feminist theory attempts to synthesize Marxism (class)
and patriarchy to focus on the structured domination and oppressionof women by men, regardless of the capitalistic nature of the society.
The socialist-feminist position maintains that in patriarchal societies
men control not only important decisions and policies affecting bothmen and women, but that they also physically control the lives and
decisions of women in interpersonal relationships (Simpson, 1989:607;
Messerschmidt, 1993:54–66). From this per -spective, female delin-
quency may be seen as a defensive reaction to male efforts to controland dominate their lives economically, emotionally, and/or physica lly.

332 theories of delinquency
In many ways, feminist theories address the reactions of social
control officials, such as the police and court figures, to the behavior
of females (Chesney-Lind, 1989; Simpson, 1989; Chesney-Lind and
Shelden, 1992). While this is certainly an important subject, differential
or discriminatory practices within the juvenile justice system are notthe focus of this volume (with the partial exception of labeling theory;
see Chapter 9). This position is similar to the one taken in Chapter 10,
in connection with the radical theory of delinquency. However, with
respect to explanations of illegal behavior among females, feminist theo-
ries offer promising avenues for future exploration and examination.
The utility of feminist theory as an explanation of criminality more
likely rests with its overall position that behavior is gender contextualizedand should be examined from this perspective (Chesney-Lind, 1989;
Baskin and Sommers, 1990: especially p. 153; Carlen, 1990:118; Chesney-
Lind and Shelden, 1992: Chapter 5), rather than in conceptualizing
several varieties of this position. Also of importance are the method-
ological implications of qualitatively examining the contextual situationsof behavior, in both industrialized societies and developing countries,
where records and statistical information may not be available or reli-
able, although a feminist perspective does not necessarily equate withqualitative methods (Simpson, 1989 :608–609). Actually, the use of eth-
nographic and other qualitative methods is needed to develop morebasic information on criminality in general, whether or not this researchis influenced by a feminist perspective.
The need to utilize more qualitative and contextualized assessments
of female behavior is illustrated in the study of male-female patterns ofself-reported delinquency in the Philippines (Shoemaker, 1994), which
was mentioned in Chapter 8. In that study, it may be recalled, social
bond factors explained virtually none of the variations in female delin-quency within the sample studied. Perhaps part, or maybe even most,
of the problem here is that the use of predetermined questions based
on theoretical constructs generated in the West, with limited responseoptions, is simply not sufficient to generate meaningful descriptions of
behavioral patterns among females in developing countries. Again, this
conclusion may well apply to general studies of crime and delinquencyin geographical areas or among populations which have received rela-
tively little attention from scholars in the past.

female delinquency 333
Thus, it seems appropriate to encourage further investigations into
causal patterns of female delinquency from a feminist point of view,
utilizing qualitative techniques of analysis. Besides generating more mean-
ingful information on female criminality, research influenced by this
perspective may also contribute to clearer understandings of male pat-terns of delinquency, and perhaps ultimately to an understanding of
common factors in the explanation of crime and delinquency among
males and females, which some argue should be the primary focus ofattention in this area of research (Steffensmeier and Streifel, 1993:71–72).
An analysis of delinquency among incarcerated males in California
institutions, and their male and female siblings, basically confirms the needto get to the basic thought and response patterns among males and fe-
males in order better to understand motivations for deviant and criminal
behavior among youth (Bottcher, 2001). Bottcher refers to this method as
“grounded theory,” in accordance with the ideas of Glaser and Strauss
(1967; see Chapter 1), but it is essentially the same idea that many feminist
theorists adopt, which is to get to the level of the individual and to try to
see things from that person’s point of view. In this situation, the objective
is to obtain basic data from the female perspective. Bottcher does us a
service, however, when she attempts to do the same thing for males. Hersample size is small and not very representative. But her conclusions sug-
gest that while there is overlap in social practices and attitudes between
males and females, boys and girls do see some things from different per-spectives, which may account for some of the differences in rates of de-
linquency among males and females. For instance, boys were considered
among all respondents to be more pressured than girls to commit delin-quent acts, and these differences affected behavior and attitudes. In addi-
tion, boys were given more privacy and more opportunity to play and
travel farther from home than were girls, factors which were thought tocontribute to greater prevalence of delinquency among males. These dif-
ferences in male and female perspectives on social and attitudinal prac-
tices persisted into dating relationships and chores around the house,although many of the respondents indicated egalitarian household rules
for brothers and sisters. Bottcher concludes that, compared to males, girls
seem more able to resist temptations and pressures for delinquency, anddesist from delinquency at an earlier age, as a result of their gender role
patterns (pp. 923–924); see also, Miller and Mullins, 2006:239–242.

334 theories of delinquency
Summary
With the accumulation of evidence on the contributing factors to fe-
male criminality, it becomes increasingly clear that no simple answers are
to be found for the explanation of female delinquency, any more thanfor an understanding of male offenses. Certainly, it would appear that
we have come a long way from the simple, often paternalistic view of
women and their transgressions which prevailed less than a century ago.
In the search to understand the delinquent behavior of people,
theories that have been developed to explain male criminality are nowbeing applied to female deviance as well. Because these theories seemto be appropriate for both sexes, some have called for the discontinu-
ation of lines of inquiry that posit explanations of crime or delinquency
among males as separate from females (Harris, 1977; Smith, 1979; Barton
and Figueira-McDonough, 1985; Smith and Paternoster, 1987;
Steffensmeier and Streifel, 1993).
While the investigation of factors that contribute to a general un-
derstanding of crime and delinquency is defensible, it may be too early
to abandon the search for unique clues to an understanding of male
behavior as distinct from female behavior (Farnworth, 1984). Not only
are males and females biologically different but, even now, boys are
socialized differently from girls. The influence of gender roles on be-
havior, for example, may be an important link between biological fac-tors and a host of environmental factors that have been offered as
explanations of behavior, and yet research on this topic is only just be-
ginning to expand. In discussing sex-related behavior, both biologicallyand psychologically oriented accounts acknowledge the influence of
environmental factors, such as parent-child interactions, on sexual iden-
tities and gender-role behavior (Money and Ehrhardt, 1972; Maccoby
and Jacklin, 1974; Baucom et al., 1985; Ruble and Martin, 1998). Gen-
der identification and sex-related behavior are very complex phenom-ena. It would thus be a mistake to ignore the investigation of gender-roleperceptions and identifications in female (and male) delinquency, re-
gardless of whether these are associated with the emancipation of
women, in favor of continued explorations into general patterns of de-
linquency. Investigations into gendered and otherwise structured char-
acteristics of female criminality will undoubtedly clarify explanatory

female delinquency 335
factors. Even studies which may examine the role of gender in broader
explanations of delinquency, such as social bond and self-control theo-ries, would seem to be better served if gendered and socially struc-
tured concepts regarding the experience of females in society are
included.
Notes
1. Pollak discusses the biological sources of female criminal behavior accord-
ing to three major events: menstruation, pregnancy, and menopause ( 1950).
Clearly, menopause lies outside the realm of adolescence and, for the most part,
Pollak’s discussion is focused on adult women more than adolescent girls. Foradditional information concerning the connection between menstruation andcrime, see Shah and Roth, 1974.
2. Campbell ( 1986) reports a relatively high incidence of self-reported fight-
ing among females in British schools, and in institutions for juvenile and adultoffenders. The severity of injuries in such fights was usually limited to cuts andbruises, inflicted with hands and feet, not weapons (most felt it inappropriateto use a knife). Furthermore, the violence among these women and girls wasnot specifically associated with gang activity, female emancipation attitudes,
or other forms of violent activity, such as robbery or murder. Thus, while fight-
ing among females is more common than official records may indicate, it doesnot necessarily reflect a tendency toward committing more serious acts of vio-lent crime, nor is it directly linked to liberated attitudes.
3. Austin ( 1982) argues that female liberation in America, as measured by
changes in divorce rates and female labor force participation rates, cannot beoverlooked as a possible cause of increased female crime rates ( juvenile and adult)that started in the mid- 1960s, especially for the crimes of robbery and auto theft.
However, he acknowledges that other factors besides female emancipation maybe responsible for this increased crime, such as an increase in self-service busi-nesses and increased female exposure to television advertising and programming.Furthermore, although his crime data did include juveniles, his measures ofemancipation (divorce and employment statistics) would appear to be morerelevant for adults than for adolescents.
4. Canter ( 1982a) argues that family factors may be more significant as
an explanation of male delinquency than female delinquency, especially forserious offenses. She also contends, however, that peer influences may bemore important than family bonds in the etiology of female delinquency.The influence of peer group orientations on female delinquency is also foundin research by Morash ( 1986).

336 theories of delinquency
5. An expanded discussion of power-control theory, including its potential to
explain a wider range of deviance among females, is presented in Hagan, 1989,
especially pp. 145–255.
References
Abbott-Chapman, Joan, Carey Denholm, and Colin Wyld, 2008, “Gender
Differences in Adolescent Risk-Taking: Are They Diminishing? An Aus-
tralian Intergenerational Study.” Youth & Society 40:131–154.
Adler, Freda, 1975, Sisters in Crime. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Adler, Freda and William S. Laufer (eds.), 1993, New Directions in Crimino-
logical Theory. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction.
Adler, Freda and Rita James Simon (eds.), 1979, The Criminology of Deviant
Women. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Agnew, Robert and Timothy Brezina, 1997 , “Relational Problems with Peers,
Gender, and Delinquency.” Youth & Society 29:84–111.
Austin, Roy L., 1982, “Women’s Liberation and Increases in Minor, Major,
and Occupational Offenses.” Criminology 20:407–430.
Barton, William H., 1976, Youth in Correctional Programs.” Pp. 20–53 in
Robert Vinter (ed.), with Theodore M. Newcomb and Rhea Kish, TimeOut, Ann Arbor, Mich: National Assessment of Juvenile Corrections.
Barton, William H. and Josefina Figueira-McDonough, 1985, “Attachments,
Gender, and Delinquency.” Deviant Behavior 6:119–144.
Baskin, Deborah R. and Ira B. Sommers, 1990, “The Gender Question in
Research on Female Criminality.” Social Justice 17:148–156.
Bates, Kristen A., Christopher D. Bader, and F. Carson Mencken, 2003, “Family
Structure, Power-Control Theory and Deviance: Extending Power-Con-trol Theory to Include Alternate Family Forms.” Western CriminologyReview 4 (3) [Online]. Available: http: //wcr.sonoma.edu/v 4n3/
bates.html.
Baucom, Donald H., Paige K. Besch, and Steven Callahan, 1985, “Relation
between Testosterone Concentration, Sex Role Identity, and Personal-ity among Females.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology48:1218–1226.
Blackwell, Brenda Sims, 2000,
“Perceived Sanction Threats, Gender, and
Crime: A Test and Elaboration of Power-Control Theory.” Criminol-ogy38:439–488.
Blackwell, Brenda Sims and Mark D. Reed, 2003, “Power-Control as a be-
tween- and within-Family Model: Reconsidering the Unit of Analysis.”Journal of Youth and Adolescence 32:385–399.

female delinquency 337
Bonger, Willem, 1916, Criminality and Economic Conditions. Reprinted,
Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1969.
Bottcher, Jean, 2001, “Social Practices of Gender: How Gender Relates to
Delinquency in the Everyday Lives of High-Risk Youths.” Criminology
39:893–932.
Box, Steven and Chris Hale, 1983, “Liberation and Female Criminality in
England and Wales.” British Journal of Criminology 23:35–49.
Broidy, Lisa and Robert Agnew, 1997 , “Gender and Crime: A General
Strain Perspective.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency34:275–306.
Burton, Velmer S., Jr., Francis T. Cullen, T. David Evans, Leanne Fital Alarid,
and R. Gregory Dunaway, 1998 , “Gender, Self-Control, and Crime.”
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 35:123–147
Campbell, Anne, 1986, “Self-Report of Fighting by Females: A Preliminary
Study.” British Journal of Criminology 26:28–46.
Canter, Rachelle J., 1982a, “Family Correlates of Male and Female Delin-
quency.” Criminology 20:149–167.
———, 1982b, “Sex Differences in Self-Report Delinquency.” Criminology
20:373–393.
Carlen, Pat, 1990, “Women, Crime, Feminism, and Realism.” Social Justice
17:106–123.
Carrington, Kerry, 2006, “Does Feminism Spoil Girls? Explanations for Offi-
cial Rises in Female Delinquency.” The Australian and New Zealand Jour-nal of Criminology 39:34–53.
Cavan, Ruth Shonle and Theodore N. Ferdinand, 1975, Juvenile Delinquency,
third edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Cernkovich, Stephen A. and Peggy C. Giordano, 1979a, “A Comparative
Analysis of Male and Female Delinquency.” Sociological Quarterly
20:131–145.
———, 1979b, “Delinquency, Opportunity, and Gender.” Journal of Crimi-
nal Law and Criminology 70:301–310.
Chandy, Joseph M., Robert Wm. Blum, and Michael D. Resnick, 1996,
“Gender-Specific Outcomes for Sexually Abused Adolescents.” ChildAbuse & Neglect 20:1219–1231.
Chesney-Lind, Meda, 1989, “Girls’ Crime and Woman’s Place: Toward a
Feminist Model of Female Delinquency.” Crime & Delinquency 35:5–29.
Chesney-Lind, Meda and Lisa Pasko, 2004, The Female Offender: Girls,
Women, and Crime, second edition. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Chesney-Lind, Meda and Randall G. Shelden, 1992, Girls, Delinquency, and
Juvenile Justice. Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks/Cole.

338 theories of delinquency
———, 1998, Girls, Delinquency, and Juvenile Justice, second edition. Belmont,
CA: West/Wadsworth.
Cowie, John, Valerie Cowie, and Eliot Slater, 1968, Delinquency in Girls.
London: Heinemann.
Cullen, Francis T., Kathryn M. Golden, and John B. Cullen, 1979, “Sex and
Delinquency: A Partial Test of the Masculinity Hypothesis.” Criminology
17:301–310.
Culliver, Concetta C. (ed.), 1993, Female Criminality: The State of the Art.
New York: Garland.
Datesman, Susan K., and Frank R. Scarpitti, 1975, “Female Delinquency and
Broken Homes: A Reassessment.” Criminology 13:33–35.
Datesman, Susan K., Frank R. Scarpitti, and Richard M. Stephenson, 1975,
“Female Delinquency: An Application of Self and Opportunity Theories.”Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 12:107–123.
Duke, Daniel Linden and Paula Maguire Duke, 1978, “The Prediction of De-
linquency in Girls.” Journal of Research and Development in Education11:18–33.
Empey, Lamar T., 1982, American Delinquency, revised edition. Homewood,
Ill.: Dorsey.
Farnworth, Margaret, 1984, “Male-Female Differences in Delinquency
in a Minority-Group Sample.” Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency 21:191–212.
Freud, Sigmund, 1933, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, trans-
lated and edited by James Strachey. New York: Norton.
Gibbons, Don C., 1981, Delinquent Behavior, third edition. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Gibbons, Don C. and Manser Griswold, 1957, “Sex Differences among Juve-
nile Court Referrals.” Sociology and Social Research 42:106–110.
Giordano, Peggy C., 1978, “Guys, Girls, and Gangs: The Changing Social
Context of Female Delinquency.” Journal of Criminal Law and Crimi-nology 69:126–132.
Giordano, Peggy C. and Stephen A. Cernkovich, 1979, “On Complicating
the Relationship between Liberation and Delinquency.” Social Problems
26:467–481.
Glueck, Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck, 1934, Five Hundred Delinquent Women.
New York: Knopf.
Greenberg, David F., 1993, “The Gendering of Crime in Marxist
Theory.” Pp. 405–442 in David F. Greenberg (ed.), Crime and Capi-
talism: Readings in Marxist Criminology. Philadelphia: Temple Uni-
versity Press.

female delinquency 339
Hagan, John, 1989, Structural Criminology. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers
University Press.
Hagan, John, A. R. Gillis, and John Simpson, 1985, “The Class Structure of
Gender and Delinquency: Toward a Power-Control Theory of Common
Delinquent Behavior.” American Journal of Sociology 90:1151–1178.
———, 1990, “Clarifying and Extending Power-Control Theory.” Ameri-
can Journal of Sociology 95:1024–1037.
———, 1993, “The Power of Control in Sociological Theories of Delinquency.”
Pp.381–398 in Freda Adler and William S. Laufer (eds.), q.v.
Hagan, John, John Simpson, and A. R. Gillis, 1987 , “Class in the Household:
A Power-Control Theory of Gender and Delinquency.” American Journal ofSociology 92:788–816.
Harris, Anthony R., 1977, “Sex and Theories of Deviance: Toward a Functional
Theory of Deviant Type-Scripts.” American Sociological Review 42:3–16.
Hartjen, Clayton A. and S. Priyadarsini, 2003, “Gender, Peers, and Delin-
quency: A Study of Boys and Girls in Rural France.” Youth & Society34:387–414.
Hawkins, Stephanie R., Phillip W. Graham, Jason Williams, and Margaret A.
Zahn, 2009, “Resilient Girls—Factors that Protect against Delinquency.”
Bulletin from the Girls Study Group: Understanding and Responding toGirls’ Delinquency. Available online at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp.
Healy, William, 1915, The Individual Delinquent. Boston: Little, Brown.
Heimer, Karen, 1996, “Gender, Interaction, and Delinquency: Testing a Theory
of Differential Social Control.” Social Psychology Quarterly 59:39–61.
Hill, Gary D. and Maxine P. Atkinson, 1988, “Gender, Familial Control, and
Delinquency.” Criminology 26:127–149.
Hindelang, Michael J., 1971, “Age, Sex and the Versatility of Delinquent In-
volvements.” Social Problems 18:522–535.
Hoffman, John P. and S. Susan Su, 1997, “The Conditional Effects of Stress on
Delinquency and Drug Use: A Strain Theory Assessment of Sex Differ-ences.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 34:46–78.
Jensen, Gary F. and Raymond Eve, 1976, “Sex Differences and Delinquency: An
Examination of Popular Sociological Explanations.” Criminology 13:427–448.
Jensen, Gary F. and Kevin Thompson, 1990, “What’s Class Got to Do with It?
A Further Examination of Power-Control Theory.” American Journal ofSociology 95:1009–1023.
Klein, Dorie, 1979, “The Etiology of Female Crime.” Pp. 58–81 in Freda Adler
and Rita James Simon (eds.), q.v.
Klein, Dorie and June Kress, 1979, “Any Woman’s Blues.” Pp. 82–90 in Freda
Adler and Rita James Simon (eds.), q.v.

340 theories of delinquency
Konopka, Gisela, 1966, The Adolescent Girl in Conflict. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall.
LaGrange, Teresa C. and Robert A Silverman, 1999, “Low Self-Control and
Opportunity: Testing the General Theory of Crime and Explanation for
Gender Differences in Delinquency.” Criminology 37 :41–72
Leiber, Michael J., Margaret Farnworth, Katherine M. Jamieson, and Mahesh
K. Nalla, 1994, “Bridging the Gender Gap in Criminology: Liberation
and Gender-Specific Strain Effects on Delinquency.” Sociological Inquiry64:56–68.
Leiber, Michael J. and Mary Ellen Ellyson Wacker, 1997, “A Theoretical and
Empirical Assessment of Power-Control Theory and Single-Mother Fami-lies.” Youth & Society 28:317–350.
Leonard, Eileen B., 1982, Women, Crime, and Society. New York: Longman.
Liu, Xiaoru and Howard B. Kaplan, 1999, “Explaining the Gender Difference
in Adolescent Behavior: A Longitudinal Test of Mediating Mechanisms.”Criminology 37:195–215.
Lombroso, Cesare and Guglielmo Ferrero, 1895, The Female Offender.
New York: Appleton.
Maccoby, Eleanor Emmons and Cary Nagy Jacklin, 1974, The Psychology of
Sex Differences. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Mason, W. Alex and Michael Windle, 2002, “Gender, Self-Control, and
Informal Social Control in Adolescence: A Test of Three Models of theContinuity of Delinquent Behavior.” Youth & Society 33:479–514.
Mears, Daniel P., Matthew Ploeger, and Mark Warr, 1998, “Explaining the
Gender Gap in Delinquency: Peer Influence and Moral Evaluations ofBehavior.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 35:251–266.
Messerschmidt, James W., 1993, Masculinities and Crime: Critique and
Reconceptualization of Theory. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.
Miller, Jody and Christopher W. Mullins, 2006, “The Status of Feminist Theo-
ries in Criminology.” Pp. 217–249 in Francis T. Cullen, John Paul Wright,
and Kristie R. Blevins (eds.), Taking Stock: The Status of CriminologicalTheory, Advances in Criminological Theory, Vol. 15. New Brunswick,
N.J.: Transaction.
Miller, Walter B., 1975, Violence by Youth Gangs and Youth Groups as a
Crime Problem in Major American Cities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gov-ernment Printing Office.
Monahan, Thomas P., 1957, “Family Status and the Delinquent Child: A
Reappraisal and Some New Findings.” Social Forces 35:250–258.
Money, John and Anke A. Ehrhardt, 1972, Man and Woman: Boy and Girl.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

female delinquency 341
Morash, Merry, 1986, “Gender, Peer Group Experiences, and Seriousness of
Delinquency.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 23:43–67.
Morash, Merry and Meda Chesney-Lind, 1991, “A Reformulation and
Partial Test of the Power Control Theory of Delinquency.” Justice
Quarterly 8:347–377.
Morris, Ruth R., 1965, “Attitudes toward Delinquency by Delinquents,
Non-Delinquents and Their Friends.” British Journal of Criminology5:249–265.
Norland, Stephen, Neal Shover, William E. Thornton, and Jennifer James,
1979, “Intrafamily Conflict and Delinquency.” Pacific Sociological Re-
view 22:223–240.
Nye, F. Ivan, 1958, Family Relationships and Delinquent Behavior. New York:
Wiley.
Pollak, Otto, 1950, The Criminality of Women. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Radosh, Polly F., 1993, “Women and Crime in the United States: A Marxian
Explanation.” Pp. 263–289 in Concetta C. Culliver (ed.), q.v.
Reiss, Albert J., 1960, “Sex Offenses: The Marginal Status of the Adolescent.”
Law and Contemporary Problems 25:309–333.
Richards, Pamela, 1981 , “Quantitative and Qualitative Sex Differences in
Middle-Class Delinquency.” Criminology 18:453–470.
Ruble, Diane N. and Carol Lynn Martin, 1998, “Gender Development.”
Chapter 14 in William Damon and Nancy Eisenberg (eds.), Handbook of
Child Psychology, fifth edition, Volume Three. New York: Wiley.
Schwartz, Jenifer and Bryan D. Rookey, 2008, “The Narrowing Gender Gap
in Arrests: Assessing Competing Explanations Using Self-Report, Traf-fic Fatality, and Official Data on Drunk Driving, 1980–2004.” Crimi-
nology 46:637–671.
Shah, Saleem A. and Loren H. Roth, 1974, “Biological and Psychophysiological
Factors in Criminality.” Pp. 101–173 in Daniel Glaser (ed.), Handbook of
Criminology. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Shoemaker, Donald J., 1994, “Male-Female Delinquency in the Philippines:
A Comparative Analysis.” Youth & Society 25:299–329.
Shover, Neal, Stephen Norland, Jennifer James, and William E. Thornton,
1979, “Gender Roles and Delinquency.” Social Forces 58:162–175.
Siegel, Jane A. and Linda M. Williams, 2003, “The Relationship between Child
Sexual Abuse and Female Delinquency and Crime: A Prospective Study.”Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 40:71–94.
Simon, Rita James, 1975, The Contemporary Woman and Crime. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

342 theories of delinquency
Simpson, Sally S., 1989, “Feminist Theory, Crime, and Justice.” Criminology
27:605–631.
Singer, Simon I. and Murray Levine, 1988, “Power-Control Theory, Gender,
and Delinquency: A Partial Replication with Additional Evidence on the
Effects of Peers.” Criminology 26:627–647.
Smart, Carol, 1976, Women, Crime and Criminology. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Smith, Douglas A., 1979, “Sex and Deviance: An Assessment of Major Socio-
logical Variables.” Sociological Quarterly 20:183–195.
Smith, Douglas A. and Raymond Paternoster, 1987, “The Gender Gap in
Theories of Deviance: Issues and Evidence.” Journal of Research in Crimeand Delinquency 24:140–172.
Steffensmeier, Darrell and Emilie Allan, 1996, “Gender and Crime: Toward a
General Theory of Female Offending.” Annual Review of Sociology22:459–487.
Steffensmeir, Darrell and Dana Haynie, 2000, “Gender, Structural Disadvan-
tage and Urban Crime: Do Macrosocial Variables Also Explain FemaleOffending Rates?” Criminology 38:403–438.
Steffensmeier, Darrell, Jennifer Schwartz, Hua Zhong, and Jeff Ackerman, 2005,
“An Assessment of Recent Trends in Girls’ Violence Using Diverse Lon-gitudinal Sources: Is the Gender Gap Closing?” Criminology 43:355–405.
Steffensmeier, Darrell J. and Renee Hoffman Steffensmeier, 1980, “Trends in
Female Delinquency: An Examination of Arrest, Juvenile Court, Self-Report, and Field Data.” Criminology 18:62–85.
Steffensmeier, Darrell J. and Cathy Streifel, 1993, “Trends in Female Crime,
1960–1990.” Pp. 63–101 in Concetta C. Culliver (ed.), q.v.
Sutherland, Anne, 1975, Gypsies: The Hidden Americans. London: Tavistock.
Sutherland, Edwin H. and Donald R. Cressey, 1978, Criminology, tenth edi-
tion. New York: Lippincott.
Thomas, William I., 1907, Sex and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
———, 1925, The Unadjusted Girl. Boston: Little, Brown.
Thornton, William E. and Jennifer James, 1979, “Masculinity and Delinquency
Revisited.” British Journal of Criminology 19:225–241.
Toby, Jackson, 1957, “The Differential Impact of Family Disorganization.”
American Sociological Review 22:505–512.
Uggen, Christopher, 2000, “Class, Gender, and Arrest: An Intergenerational
Analysis of Workplace Power and Control.” Criminology 38:835–862.
Vedder, Clyde B. and Dora B. Somerville, 1975, The Delinquent Girl, second
edition. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas.

female delinquency 343
Weis, Joseph G., 1982, “The Invention of the New Female Criminal.”
Pp.152–167 in Leonard D. Savitz and Norman Johnston (eds.), Contem-
porary Criminology. New York: Wiley.
Wise, Nancy Barton, 1967, “Juvenile Delinquency among Middle-Class Girls.”
Pp.179–188 in Edmund W. Vaz (ed.), Middle-Class Juvenile Delinquency.
New York: Harper & Row.
Zahn, Margaret A., Susan Brumbaugh, Darrell Steffensmeier, Barry C. Feld,
Merry Morash, Meda Chesney-Lind, Jody Miller, Allison Ann Payne, Denise
C. Gottfredson, and Candace Kruttschnitt, 2008, “Violence by Teenage
Girls: Trends and Context.” Bulletin from the Girls Study Group: Under-standing and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency. Available online atwww.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp.

This page intentionally left blank

12
Delinquency Theory:
An Integrative Approach
345Integrated Theories: Some Considerations
and a Proposed Model
The search for the causes of delinquency has covered several centuries
and numerous viewpoints. While we should despair of ever findingtheanswer, it is possible to point to promising theoretical positions
that should provide valuable information on the understanding of
delinquency.
Many of the discussions in the previous chapters provide examples
of efforts to combine two or more theories, including cross-disciplin-ary perspectives, into a more complete explanatory model of delin-
quency. The purpose of the present chapter is to elaborate on thisapproach to an understanding of delinquent behavior. First, there is a
discussion of some theoretical and methodological concerns with re-
spect to theory integration. Then, one example of an integrated theoryof delinquency is presented, based largely on the conclusions and in-
terpretations presented throughout the other chapters in this book.
There have been several attempts to present multiple theoretical
descriptions of crime and/or delinquency causation. Often, these ef-forts are depicted as “integrated” (Aultman and Wellford, 1979; Elliott
et al., 1979; Empey, 1982; Colvin and Pauly, 1983; Pearson and Weiner,
1985; Buikhuisen and Mednick, 1988b), although the degree to which
the theoretical model is integrated, including feedback loops, varies.

346 theories of delinquency
Several other adjectives could be used to depict the kind of multiple
explanatory efforts suggested here, such as mixed, synthetic, and con-vergent, to name a few. Whatever the name chosen, an important point
is that the effort to combine different theoretical perspectives into an
explanation of delinquent behavior is tempting to many, and an ideathat needs to be explored further.
l
Some theorists address more general patterns of crime and devi-
ance, including delinquency (Kaplan et al., 1983,1986; Kaplan, 1985;
Wilson and Herrnstein, 1985 ; Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). Of these
efforts, the work of Kaplan and his associates is a good example of anintegrative approach, and his theory focuses on the general patterns ofyouth deviance (see discussions of Kaplan’s work in Chapters 8 and 9
of this book).
Theoretical explanations of delinquency should account for why
youth not only become involved in such activity, but also why they
cease this type of behavior as they get older (Loeber et al., 1991; Smith
and Brame, 1994). Of course, this task also faces the student of crimi-
nal behavior, for most adult criminals eventually cease committing ille-gal acts. However, the shift in patterns seems less abrupt among adults
as compared to juveniles. Delinquency seems to be more common dur-ing the mid-to-late adolescent years (see Chapter 9). However, some
delinquents continue their criminal activity into adulthood. Addition-ally, some adult criminals have no record of juvenile delinquency, al-though in all likelihood they did commit delinquent acts. Adult criminals,
however, despite their backgrounds, eventually become more conform-
ist,especially during middle age. General health changes may be used
to explain, at least partially, the decline in criminality with increased
age, but this physical process would not apply to adolescents, who,
as a group, would be presumed to be in the prime of health. For thediscussions to follow, the theoretical approaches will be those which
pertain to delinquent behavior. This book is specifically a discourse
on delinquency and, as noted above, there are valid reasons to focuson the illegal behavior of youths separately from adults (McCord, 1991 ).
Attempts to combine several theoretical explanations of delin-
quency into a coherent sequence of connecting events and outcomesface a number of major issues and concerns. For example, many cur-
rent efforts to build integrated theories of delinquent behavior are,

delinquency theory: an integrative approach 347
in part, informed by widely used multivariate methods of statistical
analysis, such as multiple regression and path analysis. These techniqueshelp to determine the relative influence different factors, including
those constituent to varying theoretical positions, may have on de-
linquency. These assessments help to explain the comparative strengthof competing factors in accounting for the outcome. However, as
Hirschi ( 1979) notes, such efforts are not always successful because
different theories may themselves be separated into distinct units which
are used to explain acts other than those measured in a multiple sta-
tistical analysis. Furthermore, if variables are strung out, in sequential
fashion, toward the ultimate explanation or prediction of a designatedbehavioral pattern, the last factor examined may appear to be the only
correct one, to the exclusion of the other events in the model
(Hirschi, 1979), although this is not necessarily the case (Elliott, 1985).
These possibilities are important to consider in developing combined
theoretical explanations of delinquency because in nearly all of these
efforts the factors proposed were originally used to explain delin-quency in and of themselves.
Another issue facing integrative theories is the specific form of
delinquent behavior to be explained. Many of the theoretical positionsdiscussed in this volume were developed to explain delinquency in
general. Yet, attempts to test these theories have often found them to
be more applicable to some types of delinquency than to others. So-cial bond theory, for example, has been proposed as a general explana-
tion of delinquency. Yet, as the discussion in Chapter 8 of this volume
indicates, tests of the theory have tended to find it particularly useful
as an explanation of more common and less serious acts of youth mis-
conduct.
An illustration of the differential focus of multiple theory efforts
is provided by Delbert Elliott and his colleagues. Building on an earlierstatement of integrative theories to explain delinquency (Elliott et al.,
1979), Elliott, Huizinga, and Ageton ( 1985) offer an integrated approach
which includes strain (anomie) theory, inadequate socialization, and social
disorganization as immediate precursors to weak conventional bond-
ing to societal norms and institutions. Weak conventional bonding, inturn, leads to greater associations with delinquent and deviant peers.
Delinquent peer association is conceptualized as the proximate cause

348 theories of delinquency
of delinquency, but the other factors, especially weak social controls,
are also important. This model was tested on a national “probabilitysample” of over 1700 American youth aged 11–17 (pp. 91–92). These
people were interviewed three different times between 1977 and 1979.
The focus of the interviews was on the youths’ involvement in delin-quency and drug use, using the explanatory model described above.
The results of the surveys led Elliott et al. to conclude that their model
was useful in explaining and predicting delinquency. However, varia-tions in the power and utility of the integrated theory occurred with
respect to different types of delinquent activity. For example, the theory
explained 59 percent of the variation in marijuana use but only 29–34
percent of the distribution of hard drug use (p. 135).
A third issue facing mixed theoretical explanations of delinquency
is the question of which factors to use as representations of differenttheories used in the model. Differential association, for example, is di-
vided into nine propositions, each of which can be further subdivided
into more discrete constructs. Social bond or control theory has at leastfour major components, with several potential categories within each
unit. If one were to include all major components of these two theo-
ries in one comprehensive model, there would be at least 13 variables,
and most likely more than double that amount, in the theory. If other
theoretical explanations were included, such as anomie, social disorga-
nization, psychological, and biological theories, the number of potentialvariables in the analysis would soon approach 50! To test such a theory,
a very large sample size would be necessary, in order to account forthe influence of each variable, or set of variables, in the model. Largesample sizes are not easily garnered, particularly when voluntary re-
sponses from youth are being sought.
One way researchers have dealt with this issue is to limit the
number of variables thought to be representative of each theoreti-cal statement being considered. This solution is also partly reflec-
tive of the potential for overlapping explanation among variableswithin a theory, or between theories. Whatever the motivation(s),
selection of “representative” theoretical variables involves decision-
making procedures which are not standardized across research ef-forts. The aforementioned examination of the integrated theoretical
proposal of Elliott et al., for example, ultimately used 8 measures,

delinquency theory: an integrative approach 349
of a potential number of 25, to represent three theories in their
model—strain, social control, and deviant peer bonding ( 1985:94,
141). The selection of these 8 variables was justified on the basis of
statistical procedures, and the purpose of this discussion is not to
challenge these procedures. However, other researchers not onlymight have conceived of alternative measures of these three theo-
ries besides the 25 presented, but they may have chosen different
ones to be representative of these theories. In such instances, the
results might be different from those found by Elliott and his col-
leagues (see, for example, Edwards, 1992).
A fourth concern regarding synthesis efforts is the generalizability
of the theory to all segments of the population (Coie and Dodge,1998:838). This issue is a troubling one for specific explanations of
delinquency. Recall, for example, the focus on working- and/or lower-
class youth which characterizes much of the literature on strain or
anomie theory. This problem does not disappear when considering mul-
tiple theoretical explanations of delinquency; if anything, it becomeslarger. The examination of the integrated model of Elliott et al. is based
on the total sample of approximalely 1700 youth surveyed. Subgroups
were not analyzed separately and, as the researchers acknowledge, the
results of the analysis might have been different if different “subtypes”
had been studied ( 1985:148).
To underscore this point further, Matsueda and Heimer ( 1987)
report that learning theory (differential association) is a better explana-tion of delinquency among males than is social control theory. Attach-
ments to parents and peers were indirectly related to delinquencythrough the variable of learning definitions favorable to violation of
law, a central component of differential asso-ciation theory (pp. 831–837).
Furthermore, this process applied to both African-American and white
youth. However, among African-American males in the sample, the
effect of broken homes on delinquency (as measured by a self-report
questionnaire) was significantly stronger than for whites, thus provid-ing more support for social control theory for this subsample (p. 836).
Since there is little reason to believe specific theories of delinquencyapply equally well to all categories of youth, there should be similarmisgivings regarding the generalizability of integrated theories to all
subsamples of a population.

350 theories of delinquency
Not all research, of course, concludes that separate theories are
needed for specific categories of juveniles. Segrave and Hastad ( 1985),
for example, conclude that male and female patterns of self-reported
delinquency are explained equally well by strain, subcultural, and con-
trol theories, particularly when all three perspectives are combined.Nevertheless, such convergence is not consistently found in studies
which compare patterns of delinquency by categories such as race,
ethnicity, and gender (see, for example, the discussion in Chapter 11).
Consequently, the explanatory power of any particular integrated theory
of delinquency cannot be presumed to be equally distributed across all
social categories.
Another concern with mixed explanations of delinquency is the
different basic assumptions each included theory may have with re-spect to motivations, attitudes, and the specific contributing factor todelinquency, as has repeatedly been demonstrated in this book. This
situation may be even more pronounced when integrated theories are
interdisciplinary. In essence, it becomes a matter of what is being ex-plained, individual behavior or rates of criminality (Short, 1979,1985,
1989). For example, strain or anomie theory assumes that delinquent
youth basically strive for success and achievement through legitimateavenues but become frustrated when unable to do so, and instead turn
to illegal methods of achieving success and recognition. In addition,
this process is thought to be particularly relevant for youth in lower so-
cioeconomic positions in society. On the other hand, social control, or bond,
theory maintains that delinquency is more pronounced for youth whohave lost their desire for achievement and recognition. In essence, theseyoung people are more alienated from, and less attached to, society and
its representatives than are less delinquent youth, and this situation appliestoallpeople. Since these two theories offer opposing views on basic
feelings and attitudes of delinquent children, and address different lev-
els of explanation, it may be wondered how they could be combined
to provide a unified explanation of delinquency.
However, these seeming incompatibilities need not sound the death
knell for integrative theoretical proposals. It is becoming increasinglyclear that such structural factors as anomie or social disorganization maybe contributing to delinquency in indirect, albeit important, ways by
rendering the lives of certain juveniles more susceptible to detachment

delinquency theory: an integrative approach 351
fromparents, schools, and conformist others in general and attachment
topeers and those who are less conformist (Aultman and Wellford,
1979; Johnson, 1979; Elliott et al., 1985). Thus, one may generally
desire to be successful through legitimate activity. However, when
these avenues of achievement become difficult to pursue, identitiesand self-feelings are protected by rejecting those elements of society
which promote conformity. These are complicated processes to be
sure, but then people, young ones included, can be very complicatedand perplexing to understand, particularly when confusing and frus-
trating events are occurring in their lives.
Others have taken structural theories and attempted to combine
them with social control and learning theories to explain delinquency,but in ways different from the present discussion. In an integrated theory
similar to the power-control theory of Hagan et al. (see Chapter 11)
Colvin and Pauly ( 1983) provide an explanation of delinquency which
starts with a radical, neo-Marxist set of assumptions and proceeds toexamine the effects of the capitalist economy on work situations, fam-ily socialization patterns, and, ultimately, delinquency. These commen-
tators suggest, as have others, that the more direct causes of delinquency
lie in the patterns of parental socialization, and family relations in general,and subsequently in the peer associations of juveniles. Family relations,
however, are more directly shaped by the occupational positions
of parents, which are influenced by the economic system (a structuralfactor) of society, particularly capitalism. The particular links between
capitalism, occupational norms, and authority structures and child-rearing
practices are not clearly made by Colvin and Pauly, and they presentno empirical tests of their theory. Messner and Krohn ( 1990) provide
one example of a test of this theory, using the data from the Rich-mond Youth Survey (but excluding African-American youth from thisparticular report). Their analysis confirms significant relationships be-
tween delinquency and coercive family (and school) experiences and
delinquent peer associations, which provides some support for Colvinand Pauly’s theory. However, Messner and Krohn fail to identify any
specific connections between social class (as conceptualized by Colvin
and Pauly) and juveniles’ attitudes toward family or school, or delin-quent peer associations, a conclusion which fails to support the basic
tenets of this theory.

352 theories of delinquency
While the contributions of a capitalist production system to oc-
cupational structure, and ultimately to socialization patterns, are specu-
lative, and probably unrealistic (see Chapter 10), the attempt to
reconcile these competing theoretical positions again illustrates howintegrative theories might combine what may appear to be incompat-ible explanations of delinquency into a more unified vision of what is
occurring.
While these issues and concerns may seem insurmountable to some,
and lead them to reject integrative efforts to explain delinquency (Hirschi,1979,1989), others encourage such attempts despite these pitfalls and
shortcomings (Short, 1979,1989,1998; Elliott, 1985; Greenberg, 1999).
The trend in the literature concerning explanations of delinquency isin the direction of pursuing integrative efforts. What is to follow is an
effort to combine many of the theoretical approaches discussed in thisbook into an “integrative” explanation of delinquency.
The first point to be made about the model to be presented is
that it is focused on the origins of delinquency. Others, such as Elliottet al. ( 1985:137–148), have noted that present acts of delinquency are
often good predictors of future illegal behavior, up to the point ofmaturation. Indeed, this process is one of the principle contentions oflabeling theory, although the reasoning may not be accurate, as was
indicated in Chapter 9. Nonetheless, a model of delinquency which
proposes that delinquent behavior causes delinquent behavior does not
explain much if there is little offered to help understand why the ille-
gal activity occurred in the first place.
A second point to be made is that the model concerns delinquency
in general, with due recognition of the complexities associated withexplaining all types of delinquent behavior. Since no one theory, com-
bined or otherwise, is going to explain the totality of youthful miscon-duct, one relatively useful alternative would be to focus on more general
patterns of illegal activity. Consequently, the integrated approach to be
discussed will be referenced to status offenses (again, acts which are ille-gal only for minors) and less serious forms of criminality. It may well be
the case that the model is reasonably indicative of more serious acts, such
as violent crimes, but these would not be the major target of attention.
Coie and Dodge ( 1998) present an outstanding review of the
literature on interdisciplinary explanations of juvenile violence and

delinquency theory: an integrative approach 353
antisocial behavior. While their interpretation of the underpinnings of
juvenile offending is sequential and longitudinal, and supports a life-
course or developmental perspective (see below), it is not integrated
in the sense this term is used in the present chapter.
The proposed model of delinquency (Figure 14) is similar to other
integrative attempts, especially Johnson ( 1979), Empey ( 1982:289–296),
Elliott et al. ( 1985), and Hawkins and Lishner (1987 ). In this regard, the
present suggestion is not entirely new. However, the purpose here is
to demonstrate a sequential, and at points integrative, explanation of
delinquency based on the analyses and conclusions presented in previ-ous chapters. The causal factors are listed in horizontal fashion, with
solid arrows depicting hypothesized strong connections between two
factors in the sequence. Broken lines represent weaker associations.
Double arrows indicate a mutual influence between two variables. For
example, although many studies and several integrative proposals po-sition lack of social controls before low self-esteem and increased peerassociations, there is evidence to posit a feedback influence between
self-concept and social attachments, particularly to conformist adults,
and between peer associations and controls by adults. A solid doubleline is used to indicate a strong reciprocal influence between reduced
adult controls and lowered self-esteem, as well as the connection
between reduced controls and negative peer influence.Figure 14Lowered
Self-EsteemIncreasedInfluenceof Peers onNonconformistAttitudes andBehavior
DelinquentBehaviorIndividualCharacteristicsStructuralConditionsReducedControls
By ConformistAdults
a. in the school
b. in the family
c. in the
community
d. in the church1. Anomie
2. Social Disorganization
3. Economic and/or
Political Systems
4. Biological Traits
4a. Personality
Configurations Including Low Self-Control

354 theories of delinquency
The explanatory model presented in Figure 14 incorporates three
levels of conceptualization, structural (that is, pertaining to societal
conditions), individual (biological and psychological), and social-
psychological (social controls, self-esteem, and peer associations). To a
very large extent, each set of factors corresponds to particular theories,but the connection is not absolute or complete. Structural conditions,
for example, include variables related to anomie, social disorganization,
and neo-Marxist or radical theories of delinquency. Social control fac-tors pertain to the social bond. Self-esteem is associated, in part, with
containment theory. Peer influences deal mainly with differential associ-
ation but also include drift theory. Biological and personality trait condi-tions include numerous theoretical constructs discussed in Chapters 3
and4. Among biological factors, no one particular theoretical position
is advanced over another, although certain traits may be more feasiblyexamined. One “biosocial” explanation of adolescent sexual behavior,
for example, postulates a connection between age, hormonal and
pubertal development, social controls, and sexuality (Udry, 1988).
2
Psychological characteristics, however, are considered best represented
by personality configurations. While other psychological variables may
be used in integrative theories, the conclusion in this volume is that amore prudent approach would be to incorporate personality attributes
(nota core personality) into the explanation of delinquency.
The leftmost factors in the figure are further demarcated with a
numbering system which indicates the relative strength the cor-
responding item has, or is predicted to have, as an explanation of re-
duction in social controls. Thus, structural factors, in general, aredepicted as having more of an impact on social bonding than are indi-
vidualistic variables. Additionally, among structural conditions, anomie
and social disorganization are thought to have stronger influences onsocial attachments than are economic and/or political systems. Among
individual characteristics, biological and psychological factors are given
equal weight in terms of their effect on social attachments. They mayoperate independently of societal conditions, although the two sets of
variables could be interactive. If more serious forms of illegal behavior
were to be the explained factor, individual characteristics would weighmore heavily in the model (see, for example, Buikhuisen, 1988; Peters
et al., 1992). As demonstrated in Figure 14, structural and individual

delinquency theory: an integrative approach 355
conditions usually indirectly influence delinquency, first through so-
cial controls and subsequently relative to self-esteem, and peer associa-tions. At times, however, there may be a direct connection between
delinquency and either societal factors or personal characteristics.
The model also incorporates the influence of low self-control on de-
linquency. Low self-control is positioned as a type of personality trait,although it is often not discussed in that fashion. However, as discussed
in Chapter 4, recent surveys of personality traits related to delinquency
suggest impulsivity is an important personality construct among indi-
vidual traits of delinquents, and impulsivity is a major component of
low self-control. The line connecting low self-control to delinquencyis depicted as direct, although not strong. The strength of self-control’s
impact on delinquency is debatable, as was discussed in Chapter 8.
Continued research on this topic may lead to the conclusion that low
self-control is a major, direct contributor to delinquency, including all
forms of delinquent behavior. However, that conclusion is not justi-
fied, given the current stage of research on the general theory of crime.
The weakened social controls occasioned by structural and/or in-
dividualistic situations occupy a major explanatory position in the model.A connection between the social bond and delinquency is predicted tooccur through lowered self-concept and increased (negative) peer asso-
ciations. However, there is ample evidence to justify positing a direct
relationship between delinquency, especially less serious forms, and aweakened social bond, and this possibility is indicated in the model. Rather
than focusing on specific elements of the social bond, the proposed
integrative interpretation lists social, basically institutional, componentsof society. This listing is not haphazard. The particular situations of weak-
ened controls by adults are listed in descending order of importance rela-
tive to delinquency, to self-esteem, and to peer connections. Also, the
listing can be additive, such that weakened ties to two or more of these
societal components would yield greater tendencies toward negative self-
images and peer relations and/or delinquency than would any one unitseparately.
The figure is based on the assumption that the first societal at-
tachments for youth are with adults, usually in conformist institutionalsettings. Weakened ties to these adult figures decrease self-esteem
and increase the likelihood of oppositional peer influences on a youth’s

356 theories of delinquency
attitudes and behavior, especially an adolescent youth. Either factor,
weakened social bonds, lowered self-concept, or negative peer in-fluences, can contribute directly to delinquency, but in combined
form, the effect is powerful. Most likely, self-concept is determined,
or at least largely influenced, by relationships with adults and/or peers.A negative self-image may logically be expected from poor relation-
ships with either adults or youths, and bad experiences with both
would only exacerbate the problem. A poor self-image may further
erode positive relationships with adults and conformist peers, enhanc-
ing the likelihood of associating with nonconformist others, particu-
larly delinquent peers, perhaps in an effort to restore damaged egos.In effect, the juvenile who has a weak or negative self-image, born
of negative, rejecting relationships with adults, may seek alternative
relations with other people, probably other peers, who will “accept”him/her more openly; at least this would be the youth’s perception.
This type of new acceptance, of course, may come from those who
have been similarly rejected and now have delinquent, or deviant,values and attitudes, which they may attempt to pass along to the
new “friend” or associate. Whether the youth’s self-image improves
from these new relationships is problematic (as the broken arrow sug-gests, the self-concept may become lower still), but his/her chances
of engaging in delinquent conduct have now increased. Thus, this
model of delinquency proposes that poor self-esteem most often in-
directly contributes to delinquency, through negative experiences with
conformist adults and/or strong associations with nonconformist peers,a position which is at variance with the assumption of containmenttheory. Still, it is acknowledged that having a low self-concept may
sometimes directly lead to delinquent conduct.
3
The proposed integrated model is a modest one, with restricted
explanatory foci. It does not adequately address the situation in whichone’s original associations are with nonconformist adults and peers. In
areas characterized by high rates of crime, deviance, and social disorga-nization, for example, associations, perhaps role models, of some youth
may well be with nonconformists. Even in these areas, however, many
prosocial settings involving adults and youth exist, as was discussed inChapter 5. Furthermore, among deviant adults there has been noted
the wish to impart conformist values to their children, and presumably

delinquency theory: an integrative approach 357
to other youth in the area. Being rejected by deviant others, however,
does not necessarily mean one will turn to conformists for support.Perhaps the search for acceptance would lead one to associate with
other deviants, and the model being proposed would also fit these youth.
As has been stressed throughout this volume, more contemporary
thinking in the literature concerning explanations of delinquency isincorporating feedback effects from delinquency to its suggested
“causal” antecedents. This interactional conceptualization from delin-quency to its suspected antecedents is missing in the present example
of an integrated theory of delinquency, but it is becoming the subject
of theory and research in this field. Sampson and Laub ( 1994), for ex-
ample, contend that the relationship between parenting skills and de-
linquency should incorporate the situation wherein “difficult” children
contribute to “ineffective parenting” of these juveniles (p. 534; see also,
Agnew, 1991). However, one of the more systematically developed
interactive theories of delinquency is offered by Terence Thornberry.
An earlier paper by Thornberry ( 1987) conceptualizes delinquency
in integrated terms, but with the addition of an interactional connec-
tion between delinquency and disconnections to societal institutions.
Essentially, the model proposed by Thornberry suggests that delin-quency is better viewed as the result of events which occur in a devel-
opmental fashion, with some factors affecting illegal behavior at certain
ages and other variables exerting a greater influence at later ages, orstages of development (see also, Matsueda, 1989).
Furthermore, delinquency is not viewed as the end product in
this scheme; rather, delinquency leads to the formation of delinquentvalues, which in turn contribute to disconnections in social bonds, more
attachments to delinquent peers, and further involvement in delin-
quency. For example, Thornberry proposes that lack of attachmentsto parents is a significant contributor to delinquency among those in
“early adolescence” ( 11-13 years old), while attenuations in school bonds
and associations with peers assume greater significance in the lives of
juveniles in the stage of “middle adolescence” ( 15-16 years old). In ad-
dition, in middle adolescence, delinquent values become more impor-tant, particularly in terms of causation of further involvement indelinquency (pp. 870–879). In “later adolescence” (ages 18–20), “crimi-
nal” behavior is shaped more by lack of commitment to “conventional”

358 theories of delinquency
activities, such as “employment, attending college, and military service,”
than by parental and school factors (pp. 879–881).
This view was supported in a discussion presented in Chapter 8
on social bond theory, and it continues to receive research support.Namely, it is becoming increasingly clear that school and peer influ-ences are most important for youth in mid-adolescence, although pa-
rental influence is still significant even at this age, but that these forces
bear less importance to the attitudes and behavior of youth who areapproaching later adolescence or young adulthood ( Jang, 1999).
Thornberry et al. ( 1991,1994) offer some support for this theo-
retical perspective in examinations of a longitudinal study of youth inNew York (the Rochester Youth Development Study). In one study,
their analysis suggests that weakened bonds to parents and school con-
tribute to delinquency, but that delinquent behavior also contributesto a further weakening of these bonds ( 1991:19–25). In another exami-
nation of these data, Thornberry et al. conclude that peer influencesare of primary importance in the development of delinquent behaviorpatterns, delinquent beliefs (or values), and the interactions among these
variables ( 1994:74). The importance of peers would be consistent with
the integrated theory proposed in this chapter.
Moreover, the developmental implications of this theory fit within
the criminological debate which has been discussed throughout this book.That is, are there underlying, persistent personal characteristics, such aslack of self-control, which contribute to delinquency early in life, and
which continue to influence criminal and deviant behavior into adult-
hood (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990; see chapter 8)? Or are manifesta-
tions of criminal and delinquent behavior changeable and subject to
alterations throughout the life course (Sampson and Laub, 1993)?
Clearly, Thornberry’s interactional theory does not identify per-
sonal traits, such as lack of self-control, as the underlying factor inthe explanation of delinquency. Rather, this perspective emphasizes
attenuations in the social bond and delinquent peer relationships inthe initial explanation of delinquency. However, the developmental
trajectories proposed in this theory suggest that the interaction among
weak social bonds, associations with delinquent peers, delinquentbehavior, and delinquent beliefs assumes a spiraling, cumulative effect.
Thus, in this view, delinquency is reinforced and would be expected

delinquency theory: an integrative approach 359
to continue, even into adult crime (Thornberry, 1987:882–884). Fur-
thermore, this interactive network is discussed in terms of structural
factors such as social class, and it is contended that the cumulative
interactions which contribute to delinquency are likely to be more
common among the “lowest classes,” while the opposite trajectory ispredicted for middle-class adolescents (p. 885).
While police statistics report the overrepresentation of lower-class
youth (Thornberry, 1987:885), this scenario fails to address the rather
substantial presence of middle-class delinquency (see Chapter 6). More-
over, the prediction that delinquency will persist throughout adoles-cence and into adulthood is consistent with the projected life patternsof delinquency and crime proposed by some, such as Gottfredson and
Hirschi ( 1990) and Hagan ( 1993), but it is inconsistent with the views
of others, such as Sampson and Laub ( 1993). In addition, racial and
gender issues concerning developmental patterns of delinquency andcriminal behavior have not been thoroughly incorporated into this
theory, as Thornberry acknowledges ( 1987:887), although the exami-
nations of the theory by Thornberry et al. fail to locate any significant
racial or gender variations in the results ( 1991:27–29;1994:67).
Despite the inconsistencies relative to the predictions of this theory,
and the lack of clear specification concerning its accuracy for diversecategories of people, Thornberry’s interactional perspective seems to
make sense of much of the existing literature on explanations of delin-quency, particularly from an environmental perspective. Furthermore,
interactional conceptualizations are becoming more common among
researchers, and are being incorporated into interdisciplinary studies aswell. Most importantly, interactional theories are consistent with the
actual settings in which humans live and interact with others and with
their environment in general (Thornberry et al., 1994:76). Future
conceptualizations and investigations of explanations of delinquency
will undoubtedly address this perspective in more detail and with in-
creasing precision, thus contributing significantly to a greater under-standing of the total causal nexus of delinquent behavior. For example,
Matsueda and Anderson ( 1998) make a strong case for linking interac-
tional theory with learning theory (peer relationships) and delinquency.
Others suggest that interactional theory be integrated with a develop-
mental perspective on delinquency (LeBlanc et al., 1992).

360 theories of delinquency
Throughout this book, reference has been made to the view that
delinquency is a product of complicated “multiple pathways,” with
many turns and twists that contribute to delinquency. Sometimes, these
events are the result of labeling, as discussed in Chapter 9. Sampson
and Laub ( 1993) make a strong case for the influence of social and
environmental life-course events, particularly familial socialization andmarriage, in the shaping of deviant or conforming behavior patterns.
Moffitt ( 1993,1997), Patterson and Yoerger ( 1993), and others present
convincing evidence that there are at least two “developmental” paths
to delinquency, one occurring before adolescence, which is more per-
sistent, and another which develops in adolescence and seems to berelatively short-lived (see Chapters 3 and 4 in this volume).
Of course, the multiple pathway, or developmental, perspective
seems to be at odds with more basic explanations of crime and delin-quency, currently being espoused by Gottfredson and Hirschi’s gen-
eral (low self-control) theory of crime. A considerable amount of
research has been devoted to this debate in the past few years, withexaminations of different longitudinal data sets (Bartusch et al., 1997;
Paternoster and Brame, 1997; Simons et al., 1998; Warr, 1998). A fuller
discussion of the general theory of crime, and the impact of low self-control on delinquency, is presented in Chapter 8.
Loeber et al. ( 1998) present another view concerning this debate.
They summarize the major findings of a longitudinal study of maledelinquency, the Pittsburgh Youth Study. Among the many conclu-
sions of this research is the notion that there are at least three pathways
to serious forms of delinquency: (1 ) the “Authority Conflict Pathway,”
which is associated with defiance and challenges to authority; ( 2) the
“Covert Pathway,” which includes “lying, vandalism, and theft”; and(3) the “Overt Pathway,” the most aggressive and violent of the three.
Furthermore, these patterns of delinquency seem to develop sequen-
tially, from less serious to more serious behaviors, beginning before ado-
lescence (pp. 149–151). However, an individual trait which is strongly
associated with delinquency, presumably with all developmental mod-els, is impulsivity (pp. 151–153), a finding which is consistent with the
general theory of crime.
Support for the view that criminal patterns are dynamic is increas-
ing (Wright et al., 2001; Piquero and Brezina, 2001). Some of this research

delinquency theory: an integrative approach 361
attempts to extend the parameters of earlier investigations, and in so
doing extends some of the conclusions of this previous body of litera-ture. In addressing the importance of Sampson and Laub’s work ( 1993),
for example, Giordano et al. ( 2002), offer an interesting gender-com-
parative assessment of crime desistance among serious criminal anddelinquent offenders. While affirming the general importance of a stable
marriage and job security for crime desistance, they stress a few gender
differences which might affect outcome. Among the males in theirsample, for example, “hooks for change” seemed to be more influ-
enced by treatment programs in prison and general family issues, while
for females, these “hooks” were more often associated with childrenand religious issues. In addition, these researchers concluded that the
personal transformations (“I am a mother now”) noted in their sample
were often the result of cognitive decisions and choices designed toeffect change, such as choosing a romantic partner with a different
outlook in order to help serve as a catalyst for change. Overall, Giordano
et al. see changes in behaviors more as a result of personal transforma-tions, resulting from a more proactive, self-influenced set of hooks for
change, a point of view more consistent with a symbolic-interaction
position (see Chapter 9, on labeling theory) than a social control per-
spective, such as they identify with Sampson and Laub.
Some have suggested that a true adolescent-limited pattern of de-
linquency may not exist for females, but that life-course patterns maybe delayed (delayed onset) until adolescence (Silverthorn and
Frick, 1999). However, Moffitt and Caspi (2001 ) maintain that life-course
persistent and adolescence-limited patterns of delinquency are similar
for males and females, but that females are far less likely to be involved
in long-term, serious patterns of crime and delinquency. This view is
similar to the conclusions of Simons et al. ( 2002), who maintain that
movement away from delinquency is affected by different factors for
males and females. Among females, for example, having a conformist
romantic partner, job satisfaction, and pro-social friends were instru-mental in desisting from crime in early adulthood. For males, however,
the pattern of desistance was most significantly associated only with
conformist peers. Thus, moving away from crime and into conformistpatterns of activity was easier for females than for males because there
were more social resources for such movement among females.

362 theories of delinquency
Additional studies identify modifications of the adolescence-limited
(AL) pattern of delinquency, associated with this perspective. For ex-
ample, Moffitt et al. ( 2002) conclude that AL offenders may not always
move away from delinquency as they enter late adolescence, but, in-stead, may persist into young adulthood as offenders, if negative circum-stances, or “snares,” occur, such as not completing their education, drug
dependency, or just emotional immaturity.
In an interesting attempt to integrate theories using a pathway per-
spective, although not necessarily the dual pathways advocated by Moffittand others, Hagan and Foster ( 2003) identify patterns connected with
anger, delinquency, and depression. They argue that anger leads to de-
linquency (see the discussion of general strain theory, in Chapter 5), which
leads to depression (somewhat more for females than for males), whichis often followed by alcohol problems among males (but not females).
Research continues to expand knowledge and reflection on this
perspective. For the most part, these modifications and refinements havecontinued to support the view that people alter their behavior in re-sponse to events in their lives. Upon further consideration of the data,
Sampson and Laub suggest that an important component of life-course
theory remains its inclusion of social bonds and the impact these bondshave on individual behavior. At the same time, these theorists suggest
that the original life-course perspective be altered to include the im-
pact of human decision making, or “human agency,” as well as the in-fluence of routine activities, such as stable and conformist work,
community, and family relationships (Sampson and Laub, 2005; Laub
et al., 2006:322–329). The inclusion of routine conformist activities in
understanding the avoidance of criminal behavior or moving away frompatterns of crime and delinquency offers a promising addition to this
perspective. In addition, some research suggests that the inclusion of“spirituality,” as measured by “perceived closeness to God” and church
attendance, offers another turning point in the desistance from crime
and delinquency (Giordano et al., 2008:109–112). While the authors
acknowledge that spirituality may not be as important as key events in
one’s life, such as marriage and work, such a force in one’s life may
help to overcome emotional disappointments and to foster meaningfulrelationships with “prosocial others” and thus offer another “hook for
change” (Giordano et al., 2008:113–122).

delinquency theory: an integrative approach 363
In addition, research continues to document the existence of life-
course persistent and adolescence-limited patterns of delinquency. For
example, in an extensive review of the extant literature on this topic,
and speaking specifically to the life-course persistent pattern of delin-
quency, Terrie Moffitt ( 2006) concludes, “After ten years of research,
what can be stated with some certainty is that the hypothesized life-
course persistent antisocial individual exists, at least during the first three
decades of life” (pp. 301–302). Furthermore, these two patterns of de-
linquency seem to include the vast majority of youth. Studies suggest,
for example, that anywhere from 5–10 percent of youth are truly non-
delinquent (Moffitt, 2006:290–291).
As with all debates, the final resolution of these competing per-
spectives awaits additional research, and perhaps a further modification
of the existing explanatory models. It is fairly certain, however, that adynamic depiction of delinquency causation will ultimately be the more
accepted explanatory model, even if it contains a more singular “la-
tent” individual trait, or constellation of traits, as one of the pathwaysto youthful offending.
What is needed in delinquency theory and research is contin-
ued understanding of how delinquency develops and is either main-tained or discontinued, whether for a short period of time or more
permanently (Loeber et al., 1991; Elliott, 1994; Smith and Brame, 1994).
At this point it would seem that the way to approach this goal is to
attempt to amalgamate existing theories, building on the relative
strengths of each and increasing their explanatory power.
We should not pretend to be so knowledgeable of human be-
havior as to unequivocally cast aside any effort to explain it. The in-formed student of delinquency should know what various theories offer,
their strengths, their weaknesses, and their interconnections. If this isaccomplished, more sophisticated interpretations of juvenile delinquency
become possible, and the eventual management of such behavior comes
more within our reach.
Notes
1. One edited work compiles several papers prepared for discussion at a
conference held in 1987 at SUNY Albany, concerning problems and prospects

364 theories of delinquency
of theoretical integration for explanations of crime and deviance (Messner et al.,
1989). Generally, the authors of the papers tend to favor efforts to develop
and/or test integrative theories, but with the awareness that such attemptsface many problematic issues. Also, see Akers ( 1994:181–197) for an excellent
discussion of integrative theories and several examples of such theories, in-cluding those of Elliott et al., Kaplan, and Thornberry.
2. C. Ray Jeffery ( 1989) advocates an interdisciplinary approach which would
more carefully incorporate biological factors into an explanation of delinquency.Jeffery argues that many sociological concepts and theories have biological bases,but these are not explored. To emphasize this point he states, “No muscle hasever been moved by a social bond or a self-concept” (p. 85). See also, Jeffery
(1994). Others call for more inclusion of psychological and social-psychological
concepts in theories of crime and delinquency (Gibbons, 1989; Wood et al.,
1993:125–126). It would seem from the discussions in Chapters 3 and 4 that
current research is, indeed, becoming more interdisciplinary, and perhaps cogni-zant of the view that while no muscle may have ever been moved by a socialbond, individual characteristics and environmental factors combine, and some-times interact, to produce behavior, conformist or illegal.
3. Again, it should be emphasized that self-esteem, or self-concept, as used
in the present context is conceptualized in positive or negative terms. It ispossible that one may identify with criminal attitudes, commit criminal acts
accordingly, and possess a positive self-concept (see the discussions in Chapters
8 and 9). The position taken in this volume, however, is that delinquency is
more often associated, indirectly, with low self-esteem.
References
Akers, Ronald, 1994, Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation.
Los Angeles: Roxbury.
Aultman, Madeline G. and Charles F. Wellford, 1979, “Towards an Integrated
Model of Delinquency Causation: An Empirical Analysis.” Sociology and
Social Research 63:316–327.
Bartusch, Dawn R. Jeglum, Donald R. Lynam, Terrie E. Moffitt, and Phil A.
Silva, 1997, “Is Age Important? Testing a General Versus a Developmen-
tal Theory of Antisocial Behavior.” Criminology 35:13–48.
Buikhuisen, W., 1988, “Chronic Juvenile Delinquency: A Theory.” Pp. 27–47
in Woutor Buikhuisen and Sarnoff Mednick (eds.), q.v.
Buikhuisen, Wouter and Sarnoff A. Mednick (eds.), 1988a, Explaining Crimi-
nal Behavior: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Leiden, The Netherlands: E.J.Brill.

delinquency theory: an integrative approach 365
Buikhuisen, Wouter and Sarnoff A. Mednick, 1988b, “The Need for an Inte-
grative Approach to Criminology.” Pp. 3–7 in Buikhuisen and Mednick
(eds.), q.v.
Coie, John D. and Kenneth A. Dodge, 1998, “Aggression and Antisocial Be-
havior.” Chapter 12 in William Damon and Nancy Eisenberg (eds.), q.v.
Colvin, Mark and John Pauly, 1983. “A Critique of Criminology: Toward an
Integrated Structural-Marxist Theory of Delinquency Production.” Ameri-
can Journal of Sociology 89:513–551.
Damon, William and Nancy Eisenberg (eds.), 1998, Handbook of Child Psy-
chiatry, fifth edition, Volume Three. New York: Wiley.
Edwards, Willie J., 1992, “Predicting Juvenile Delinquency: A Review of
Correlates and a Confirmation by Recent Research Based on an IntegratedTheoretical Model.” Justice Quarterly 9:553–583.
Elliott, Delbert S., 1985, “The Assumption That Theories Can Be Combined
with Increased Explanatory Power: Theoretical Interpretations.” Pp. 123–149
in Robert F. Meier (ed.), q.v.
———, 1994, “Serious Violent Offenders: Onset, Developmental Course, and
Termination-The American Society of Criminology 1993 Presidential
Address.” Criminology 32:1–21.
Elliott, Delbert S., Suzanne S. Ageton, and Rachelle J. Canter, 1979, “An
Integrated Theoretical Perspective on Delinquent Behavior.” Journal ofResearch in Crime and Delinquency 16 :3–27.
Elliott, Delbert S., David Huizinga, and Suzanne S. Ageton, 1985, Explaining
Delinquency and Drug Use. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Empey, LaMar T., 1982, American Delinquency, revised edition. Homewood,
Ill.: Dorsey.
Gibbons, Don C., 1989, “Comment-Personality and Crime; Non-Issues, Real
Issues, and a Theory and Research Agenda.” Justice Quarterly 6:311–323.
Giordano, Peggy C., Stephen A. Cernkovich, and Jennifer L. Rudolph, 2002,
“Gender, Crime, and Desistance: Toward a Theory of Cognitive Trans-formation.” American Journal of Sociology 107:990–1064.
Giordano, Peggy C., Monica A. Longmore, Ryan D. Schroeder, and Patrick
M. Seffrin, 2008, “A Life-Course Perspective on Spirituality and Desis-
tance from Crime.” Criminology 46:99–131.
Gottfredson, Michael R. and Travis Hirschi, 1990, A General Theory of Crime.
Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Greenberg, David F., 1999, “The Weak Strength of Control Theory.” Crime
& Delinquency 45:66–81.
Hagan, John, 1993, “The Social Imbeddedness of Crime and Unemployment.”
Criminology 31:465–491.

366 theories of delinquency
Hagan, John and Holly Foster, 2003, “S/He’s a Rebel: Toward a Sequential
Stress Theory of Delinquency and Gendered Pathways to Disadvantage in
Emerging Adulthood.” Social Forces 82:53–86.
Hawkins, J. David and Denise M. Lishner, 1987, “Schooling and Delinquency.”
Pp.179–221 in Elmer J. Johnson (ed.), Handbook on Crime and Delin-
quency Prevention. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
Hirschi, Travis, 1979, “Separate and Unequal is Better.” Journal of Research
in Crime and Delinquency 16:34–38.
———, 1989, “Exploring Alternatives to Integrated Theory.” Pp. 37–49 in
Steven Messner, Marvin Krohn, and Allen Liska (eds.), q.v.
Hodgins, Sheilagh (ed.), 1993, Mental Disorder and Crime. Newbury Park,
Calif.: Sage.
Jang, Sung Joon and Marvin D. Krohn, 1995, “Developmental Patterns of Sex
Differences in Delinquency among African American Adolescents: A Testof the Sex-Invariant Hypothesis.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology11:195–222.
Jeffery, C. Ray, 1989, “An Interdisciplinary Theory of Criminal Behavior.”
Pp.69–87 in William S. Laufer and Freda Adler (eds.), Advances in Crimi-
nological Theory. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction.
———, 1994, “Biological and Neuropsychiatric Approaches to Criminal
Behavior.” Pp. 15–28 in Gregg Barak (ed.), Varieties of Criminology:
Readings from a Dynamic Discipline. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.
Johnson, Richard E., 1979, Juvenile Delinquency and Its Origins. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, Howard B., 1985, “Testing a General Theory of Drug Abuse and Other
Deviant Adaptations.” Journal of Drug Issues 15:477–492.
Kaplan, Howard B., Cynthia Robbins, and Steven S. Martin, 1983, “Toward
the Testing of a General Theory of Deviant Behavior in Longitudinal Per-spective: Patterns of Psychopathology.” Research in Community and Men-tal Health 3:27–65.
Kaplan, Howard B., Steven S. Martin, and Robert J. Johnson, 1986, “Self-
Rejection and the Explanation of Deviance: Specification of the Structureamong Latent Constructs.” American Journal of Sociology 92:384–411.
Laub, John H., Robert J. Sampson, and Gary A. Sweeten, 2006, “Assessing
Sampson and Laub’s Life-Course Theory of Crime.” Pp. 313–333 in Francis
T. Cullen, John Paul Wright, and Kristie R. Blevins (eds.), Taking Stock:The Status of Criminological Theory, Advances in Criminological Theory,Vol.15. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction.
Le Blanc, Marc, Evelyne Vallieres, and Pierre McDuff, 1992, “Adolescents’
School Experience and Self-R eported Offending: An Empirical Elabora-

delinquency theory: an integrative approach 367
tion of an Interactional and Developmental School Social Control Theory.”
International Journal of Adolescence and Youth 3:197–247.
Loeber, Rolf, David P. Farrington, Magda Stouthamer-Loeber, Terrie E.
Moffitt, and Avshalom Caspi, 1998, “The Development of Male Of-
fending: Key Findings from the Pittsburgh Youth Study.” Studies inCrime and Crime Prevention 7:141–171.
Loeber, Rolf, Magda Stouthamer-Loeber, Welmoet van Kammen, and David
P. Farrington, 1991, “Initiation, Escalation, and Desistance in Juvenile Of-
fending and Their Correlates.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminol-ogy82:36–82.
Matsueda, Ross L., 1989, “The Dynamics of Moral Beliefs and Minor Devi-
ance.” Social Forces 68:428–457.
Matsueda, Ross L. and Kathleen Anderson, 1998, “The Dynamics of Delin-
quent Peers and Delinquent Behavior.” Criminology 36:269–308.
Matsueda, Ross L. and Karen Heimer, 1987, “Race, Family Structure, and
Delinquency.” American Sociological Review 52:826–840.
Messner, Steven F. and Marvin D. Krohn, 1990, “Class, Compliance Struc-
tures, and Delinquency: Assessing Integrated Structural-Marxist Theory.”American Journal of Sociology 96:300–328.
Messner, Steven F., Marvin D. Krohn, and Allen E. Liska (eds.), 1989, Theo-
retical Integration in the Study of Deviance and Crime: Problems and Pros-pects. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.
Moffitt, Terrie E., 1993, “’Life-Course-Persistent and ‘Adolescent-Limited’ An-
tisocial Behavior: A Developmental Taxonomy.” Psychological Review100:674–701.
———, 1997, “Adolescence-Limited and Life-Course-Persistent Offending:
A Complementary Pair of Developmental Theories.” Pp. 11–54 in Terence
P. Thornberry (ed.), Developmental Theories of Crime and Delinquency.New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction.
———, 2006, “A Review of Research on the Taxonomy of Life-Course
Persistent Versus Adolescence-Limited Antisocial Behavior.”Pp.277–311 in Cullen et al., Taking Stock: The Status of Criminological
Theory, q.v.
Moffitt, Terrie E. and Avshalom Caspi 2001, “Childhood Predictors Differenti-
ate Life-Course Persistent and Adolescent-Limited Antisocial Pathwaysamong Male and Females.” Development and Psychopathology 13:355–375.
Moffitt, Terrie E., Avshlom Caspi, Honalee Harrington, and Barry J. Milne,
2002, “Males on the Life-Course-Persistent and Adolescence-Limited
Antisocial Pathways: Follow-up at Age 26 Years.” Development and
Psychopathology 14:179–207.

368 theories of delinquency
Paternoster, Raymond and Robert Brame, 1997, “Multiple Routes to Delin-
quency? A Test of Developmental and General Theories of Crime.” Crimi-
nology 35:49–84.
Patterson, Gerald R. and Karen Yoerger, 1993, “Developmental Models for
Delinquent Behavior.” Pp. 140–172 in Sheilagh Hodgins (ed.), q.v.
Pearson, Frank S. and Neil Alan Weiner, 1985, “Toward an Integration of
Criminological Theories.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology76:116–150.
Peters, Ray DeV., Robert J. McMahon, and Vernon L. Quinsey (eds.), 1992,
Aggression and Violence Throughout the Life Span. Newbury Park, Calif.:Sage.
Piquero, Alex R. and Andre B. Rosay, 1998, “The Reliability and Validity of
Grasmick et al.’s Self-Control Scale: A Comment on Longshore et al.”Criminology 36:157–173.
Piquero, Alex R. and Timothy Brezina, 2001, “Testing Moffitt’s Account of
Adolescence-Limited Delinquency.” Criminology 39:353–370.
Sampson, Robert J. and John H. Laub, 1993, Crime in the Making: Pathways
and Turning Points through Life. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UniversityPress.
———, 1994, “Urban Poverty and the Family Context of Delinquency: A New
Look at Structure and Process in a Classic Study.” Child Development65:523–540.
———, 2005, “A Life-Course View of the Development of Crime.” The An-
nals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 602:12–45.
Segrave, Jeffrey O. and Douglas N. Hastad, 1985, “Evaluating Three Models
of Delinquency Causation for Males and Females: Strain Theory, Subcul-ture Theory, and Control Theory.” Sociological Focus 18:1–17.
Short, James F., Jr., 1979, “On the Etiology of Delinquent Behavior.” Journal
of Research in Crime and Delinquency 16:28–33.
———, 1985, “The Level of Explanation Problem in Criminology.” Pp. 51–72
in Robert F. Meier (ed.), q.v.
———, 1989, “Exploring Integration of Theoretical Levels of Explanation:
Notes on Gang Delinquency.” Pp. 243–259 in Steven Messner, Marvin
Krohn, and Allen Liska (eds.), q.v.
———, 1998, “The Level of Explanation Problem Revisited—The Ameri-
can Society of Criminology 1997 Presidential Address.” Criminology
36:3–36.
Silverthorn, Persephanie and Paul J. Frick, 1999, “Developmental Pathways
to Antisocial Behavior: The Delayed Onset Pathway of Girls.” Develop-ment and Psychopathology 11:101–126.

delinquency theory: an integrative approach 369
Simons, Ronald L., Christine Johnson, Rand D. Conger, and Glen Elder, Jr.,
1998, “A Test of Latent-Trait Versus Life-Course Perspectives on the Sta-
bility of Adolescent Antisocial Behavior.” Criminology 36:217–243.
Simons, Ronald L., Eric Stewart, Leslie C. Gordon, Rand D. Conger, and
Glen H. Elder, Jr., 2002, “A Test of Life-Course Explanations for Stability
and Change in Antisocial Behavior from Adolescence to Young Adulthood.”
Criminology 40:401–434.
Smith, Douglas A. and Robert Brame, 1994, “On the Initiation and Continu-
ation of Delinquency.” Criminology 32:607–629.
Thornberry, Terence P., 1987, “Toward an Interactional Theory of Delin-
quency. Criminology 25:863–891.
Thornberry, Terence P., Alan J. Lizotte, Marvin D. Krohn, Margaret Farnworth,
and Sung Joon Jang, 1991, “Testing Interactional Theory: An Examina-
tion of Reciprocal Causal Relationships among Family, School and Delin-quency.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 82:3–35.
———, 1994, “Delinquent Peers, Beliefs, and Delinquent Behavior: A Longi-
tudinal Test of Interactional Theory.” Criminology 32:47–83.
Udry, J. Richard, 1988, “Biological Predispositions and Social Control in
Adolescent Sexual Behavior.” American Sociological Review 53:709–722.
Warr, Mark, 1998, “Life-Course Transitions and Desistance from Crime.”
Criminology 36:183–216.
Wilson, James D. and Richard J. Herrnstein, 1985, Crime and Human Nature.
New York: Simon and Schuster.
Wood, Peter B., Betty Pfefferbaum, and Bruce J. Arneklev, 1993, “Risk-Taking
and Self-Control: Social Psychological Correlates of Delinquency.” Jour-nal of Crime and Justice 16:111–130.
Wright, Bradley R. Entner, Avshalom Caspi, Terrie E. Moffitt, and Phil
A. Silva, 2001, “The Effects of Social Ties on Crime Vary by Criminal
Propensity: A Life-Course Model of Interdependence.” Criminology39:321–351.

This page intentionally left blank

Author Index
Abbott-Chapman, Joan, 330
Abrahamsen, David, 91n2
Adams, Mike S., 274
Adams, Reed, 187
Adams, Stuart N., 82,84
Adler, Freda, 133n3,142,305,
312–13,316
Ageton, Suzanne S., 67,170,267,
268,272,347
Agnew, Robert, 128–31,133n4,
172,193,201,245,246,250,
321,322,357
Aichhorn, August, 72–73,74
Akers, Ronald L., 8,9,21,170,
187,225,248,289
Albada-Lim, Estefania, 195
Albanese, Jay, 171
Albrecht, Gary L., 223–24
Alexander, Franz, 72–73
Allan, Emilie Anderson, 159,
317,322
Anderson, Elijah, 151,158
Anderson, Kathleen, 43,359
Arbuthnot, Jack, 250
Ariès, Phillippe, 292
Arneklev, Bruce J., 249,250Arnold, William R., 293
Arseneault, Louise, 42
Aseltine, Robert H., Jr., 192
Atkinson, Maxine P., 327–28
Aultman, Madeline G., 345,351
Austin, James, 15,292
Austin, Roy L., 62,65–66,84,
169,209,335n3
Ayers, William, 5
Baier, Colin J, 227
Bainbridge, William Sims, 226
Baker, Daniel, 118
Baldwin, Scott A., 218
Ball, Richard A., 200
Banfield, Edward C., 165
Barkley, Russell A., 47
Barton, William H., 314,315,
320,334
Bartusch, Dawn Jeglum, 249,
274,360
Baskin, Deborah R., 332
Bates, Kristen A., 330
Battin, Sara R., 141
Baucom, Donald H., 334
Bazemore, Gordon, 276n2

372 author index
Beccaria, Cesare, 5,16,17
Becker, Gary S., 20
Becker, Howard S., 260,262–63,
264,265,272
Beker, Jerome, 82,84
Benda, Brent B., 225
Bender, Doris, 88
Bentham, Jeremy, 5,18
Berger, Alan S., 169
Bernard, Thomas J., 4,15,17,18,
19,30,36,65,83,172
Bernburg, Jon Gunnar, 275
Betts, 220
Binet, Alfred, 64
Bishop, Donna M., 271,272,273
Black, Donald J., 294
Blackwell, Brenda Sims, 329
Blalock, Hubert M., Jr., 8
Blazack, Randy, 170
Block, Jack, 82
Block, N. J., 64
Bogt, Tom ter, 196
Bonger, Willem, 285,312,324
Booth, Alan, 28
Bordua, David J., 125,150
Bortner, M. A., 294
Botchkovar, Ekaterina V., 131
Bottcher, Jean, 333
Bottomore, T. B., 298n1
Box, Steven, 317
Braithwaite, John, 170,276n2
Brame, Robert, 346,360,363
Braukmann, Curtis J., 12n2
Brezina, Timothy, 130,133n4,
322,360
Briar, Scott, 200,202,294
Broidy, Lisa, 130
Bromberg, Walter, 78
Bronner, Augusta F., 72,77,83
Buikhuisen, Wouter, 345,354Burgess, Ernest W., 102,103,107
Burgess, Robert L., 187
Burkett, Steven R., 223,226
Bursik, Robert J., Jr., 118,
133n1,161
Burton, Velmer S., Jr., 321
Butler, Edgar W., 82,84
Campbell, Anne, 335n2
Campbell, Susan B., 47
Canter, Rachelle J., 314,
335n4
Caplan, Aaron, 253n6
Carey, Gregory, 38
Carlen, Pat, 332
Carrington, Kerry, 318
Carter, Timothy J., 293
Casey, Pamela, 46
Cashwell, Craig S., 191
Caspi, Avshalom, 85,86,90,361
Cavan, Ruth S., 310,313
Cernkovich, Steven A., 232–33,
240,243,314,317,320
Chamberland, Claire, 150
Chambers, Jeff M., 119
Chambliss, William J., 110,265,
266,284,286–87
Champion, Dean J., 19
Chandy, Joseph M., 322
Chesney-Lind, Meda, 142,315,
316,317,318,322,328,329,
331,332
Chilton, Roland J., 125,126
Chin, Ko-Lin, 110
Christiansen, Karl O., 36,37,
40,43
Cicourel, Aaron, 265
Clarke, Ronald V., 16,20,21
Cleckley, Hervey, 80
Clelland, Donald, 293

author index 373
Clinard, Marshall B., 75,169
Cloninger, C. R., 41
Cloward, Richard A., 143,152–62,
163,173,290
Cochran, John K., 225,248
Cohen, Albert K., 6,75,76,
142,143–51,163,171–72,
199,238,241
Cohen, Lawrence E., 293
Coie, John D., 88,349,352–53
Cole, Stephen, 126
Colvin, Mark, 345,351
Conger, John Janeway, 90n1
Connor, Walter D., 298
Cook, Sandra, 298
Cooley, Charles Horton, 259
Cornish, Derek B., 16,20
Cortes, Juan B., 31–33,36
Cott, Allan, 44,45,46
Cowie, John, 308
Creechan, James H., 249
Cressey, Donald R., 37,65,77,78,
79–80,99,111,115,116,185,
188,190,305
Crosnoe, Robert, 240
Cullen, Francis T., 162,235,249,
250,315–16
Curran, Daniel J., 8,19,298
Currie, Raymond, 224
Curry, David G., 111
Dalgard, Odd Steffen, 37–38,40
Datesman, Susan K., 314,320
DeFleur, Lois B., 109,116
DeFleur, Melvin, 186–98
DeKeseredy, Walter S., 295,296
Delaney, Tim, 110
Dembo, Richard, 192
Denno, Deborah W., 22,28,41,
42,69Denton, Melinda Lundquist, 225
DiLalla, Lisabeth Fisher, 235
Dinitz, Simon, 74,78–79,83,84,
169,215,216,252n2
Dishion, Thomas, 193,195
Dodge, Kenneth A., 88,349,
352–53
Donnelly, Patrick G., 118
Dornbusch, Sanford M., 229
Dotter, Daniel L., 262
Downs, William R., 272–73
Dugdale, Richard L., 35
Duke, Daniel L., 320
Duke, Paula M., 320
Dunham, H. W., 107
Durkheim, Emile, 100,122–23,
126–27,128,209
Duster, Troy, 291
Dworkin, Gerald, 64
Ebbe, Obi I., 109,115
Edwards, Willie J., 349
Ehrhardt, Anke A., 334
Ellenbogen, Stephen, 150
Elliott, Delbert S., 67,117,147,
148,156,157,170,193,267,
268,272,345,347,348–49,351,
352,353,363,364n1
Ellis, Lee, 225,226
Emerson, Robert M., 265
Empey, Lamar T., 162,209,239,
246,252n4,284,292–93,314,
316,345,353
Engels, Frederick, 296
Engels, Rutger C. M. E., 196
Erickson, Kristen Glasgow, 192
Erickson, Maynard L., 161,226
Evans, T. David, 225,248
Eve, Raymond A., 243,320
Eynon, Thomas G., 269

374 author index
Eysenck, Hans J., 48–50,64,80
Eysenck, Sybil B. G., 49–50,52,80
Fabrikant, Richard, 115
Fagan, Jeffrey, 149,184
Fannin, Leon F., 169
Faris, Robert, 225
Farnworth, Margaret, 158,170,334
Farrington, David P., 148,161,
217,237
Farris, R. E. L., 107
Feldman, David, 70
Felson, Marcus, 21,33,248
Ferdinand, Theodore N., 310,313
Ferracuti, Franco, 165
Ferrero, Guglielmo, 305,306
Figueira-McDonough, Josefina,
149,315,320,334
Finestone, Harold, 107,108
Fink, Arthur E., 27,28,30,35,61,
65,79
Fink, Carolyn Molden, 45
Fishbein, Diana H., 22,41,45
Flacks, Richard, 170
Fleener, Fran Trocinsky, 45,46
Forrest, A. R., 50
Foster, Holly, 362
Foster, Jack D., 266–67
Free, Marvin D., Jr., 225,230
Freud, Anna, 71
Freud, Sigmund, 70,71–72,74,
89,307
Frick, Paul J., 361
Friedlander, Kate, 72–73
Friedrichs, David O., 286,288
Fukurai, Hiroshi, 273
Fuller, John R., 297
Gagnon, John, 173n2
Gallico, Rubin, 45,46Gardner, Robert LeGrande, III,
193,244,246
Garnier, Helen H., 196
Gartin, Patrick R., 270
Gatti, Florence M., 31–33,36
Geismar, Ludwig L., 228
Gibbons, Don C., 6,8,84,269,
271,314,364n2
Gibbs, Jack P., 248,252n1,263
Gibbs, Leonard E., 267
Gillis, A. R., 322,325
Gintis, Herbert, 286
Giordano, Peggy C., 193,200,232–33,
240,267,314,317,320,361,362
Glaser, Barney G., 8
Glaser, Daniel, 187,244,333
Glueck, Eleanor, 30–31,76,83,
221–22,228,230–31,252n4,
305,314
Glueck, Sheldon, 30–31,76,83,
188,221–22,228,230–31,
252n4,305,314
Goddard, Henry H., 35,64–65
Goffman, Erving, 75
Gold, Martin, 272
Goodman, Paul, 199
Gordon, David M., 288–89
Gordon, Robert A., 66–67,70,
125,173n3
Goring, Charles B., 30
Gottesman, I. I., 41
Gottfredson, Denise C., 115
Gottfredson, Michael R., 22,86,
148,247,248,250,346,358
Gough, Harrison G., 89
Gould, Leroy C., 268
Gove, Walter R., 262,264
Grace, William C., 64
Grasmick, Harold G., 248,249
Gray, Phyllis A., 158

author index 375
Greenberg, David F., 246,291,
331,352
Griswold, Manser, 314
Grosser, George, 310–11
Groves, W. Byron, 114,115,283,
295,297,298
Gudjonsson, Gisli H., 49,52
Guerry, A. M., 99
Guo, Guang, 43
Hackler, James C., 246
Hagan, John, 110,111,150,170,
194,293,322–29,336n5,351,
359,362
Hakeem, Michael, 74
Halbasch, Keith, 188
Hale, Chris, 317
Halleck, Seymour L., 91n2
Hamlin, John E., 198
Han, Wan Sang, 156
Hannon, Lance, 275
Harding, Richard W., 22
Hare, Robert D., 50,81
Harris, Anthony R., 334
Hartjen, Clayton A., 191,244,321
Hartnagel, Timothy F., 149
Harvey, Dale G., 146
Haskell, Martin R., 187,228,232
Hastad, Douglas N., 350
Hathaway, Starke R., 79,83
Hawkins, J. David, 322,353
Hay, Dale F., 88,117
Hayner, Norman S., 110
Haynes, Jack P., 64
Haynie, Dana L., 33,194
Healy, William, 72–73,77,83,308
Heaven, Patrick C. L., 85
Heimer, Karen, 165,191,193,274,
321,349
Heitgerd, Janet L., 118Hepburn, John R., 190,246,267
Herrnstein, Richard J., 68,346
Hewitt, Lester E., 73
Heyman, Doris S., 82,84
Hickey, Eric W., 297
Higgins, Paul C., 223–24
Hill, Gary D., 327–28
Hindelang, Michael J., 67–68,70,
170,193,200,232,243,272,
293,314
Hinners, James E., 298
Hirschi, Travis, 6,7,22,67–68,
70,86,146,148,157,193,
209,219,220,222–24,226,232,
239,242,243,246,247,252n5,
263,264,320,346,348,352,
358,359
Hirst, Paul Q., 286
Hoffman, John P., 117,133n3,
218,241,321
Hoge, Dean R., 217
Hoghughi, M. S., 50
Hollingshead, August E., 146
Holzman, Harold R., 45,46
Homans, George C., 8
Hooton, Ernest A., 30
Horn, David G., 54n2
Horwitz, Allan, 293
Howard, Rodney C., 64
Huebner, Angela, 220
Huizinga, David, 90,347
Hutchings, Barry, 40
Ianni, Francis A. J., 111
Inciardi, James A., 4
Inkeles, Alex, 75
Iovanni, Lee Ann, 276
Ireland, Timothy O., 133n3,
237,242
Irvine, Jacqueline Jordan, 291

376 author index
Jacklin, Carol Nagy, 334
James, Jennifer A., 316,320
James, William, 259
Jamieson, Katherine M.
Jang, Sung Joon, 217,246,
249,358
Jarjoura, G. Roger, 149,274
Jeffery, C. R., 28,187,364n2
Jenkins, Richard L., 73,239,242
Jensen, A. R., 64
Jensen, Gary F., 150,190,216,
221,224,226,238,246,
267–68,269,272,297,320,328,
329
Jesness, Carl F., 82,84
Johnson, Richard E., 191,229,
351,353
Johnson, Robert J., 273
Johnstone, John W. C., 109,293
Jonassen, Christen T., 110
Jones, Donald R., 42
Jones, Marshall B., 42
Jones, Suzanne P., 85
Joseph, Janice, 243
Junger, Marianne, 245
Kamin, Leon, 64
Kaplan, Howard B., 90,128,149,
217,273,321,346,364n1
Katz, Rebecca, 249
Keilitz, Ingo, 46
Kelly, Delos H., 146,246
Kelly, Henry E., 44
Kempf-Leonard, Kimberly L., 148
Kern, Roger, 237
Kethineni, Sesharajani, 191,244
Killias, Martin, 31
Kimble, Charles E., 118
Kitsuse, John I., 264
Klein, Dorie, 309,312Klein, Malcolm W., 141,150,272
Klemke, Lloyd W., 263
Kling, Jeffrey R., 116
Klockars, Carl B., 290
Kluegel, James R., 293
Knox, George W., 243
Kobrin, Solomon, 108,112,153
Konopka, Gisela, 308,314
Kornhauser, Ruth Rosner, 241,243
Kraeger, Derek A., 166
Krahn, Harvey, 149
Kraus, Jonathan, 294
Kress, June, 312
Kretschmer, Ernst, 30
Kringlen, Einar, 37–38,40
Krisberg, Barry, 15,62,199,
209,292
Krohn, Marvin D., 6,170,249,
252n1,269,271,351
Kruttschnitt, Candace, 239
Kubrin, Charis E., 118
Lab, Steven R., 271
La Free, Gary, 158
LaGrange, Teresa C., 321
Lanctot, Nadine, 274
Lander, Bernard, 125
Landsheer, J. A., 200
LaRosa, John F., Jr., 195
Lau, Sing, 218
Laub, John H., 22,23,67,90,200,
234,235,252n4,357,358,359,
360–61,362
Laufer, William S., 133n3
Lawrence, Richard, 149,150
LeBlanc, Marc, 234–35,239,245,
253n6,359
Leiber, Michael J., 158,320,329
Lemert, Edwin M., 133n2,259,
260,261–62,263,272

author index 377
Leon, Jeffrey, 293
Leonard, Eileen B., 316
Leung, Kwok, 218
Levine, Murray, 326,327
Lewis, Dorothy Otnow, 77
Lewis, Oscar, 165
Liazos, Alexander, 146,150,
291,298
Liebow, Elliot, 151,158,166
Lilly, J. Robert, 9,295
Linden, Eric, 224,246
Lindesmith, Alfred R., 173n2
Lindner, Robert, 91n2
Lipsitt, Paul, 269
Lishner, Denise M., 353
Liska, Allen E., 240,246
Liu, Ruth X., 194
Liu, Xiaoru, 149,321
Loeb, Janice, 50
Loeber, Rolf, 85,88,119,233,
240,346,360,363
Lombroso, Cesare, 29,305,
306–7,312
Lombroso-Ferrero, Gina, 29
Longshore, Douglas, 249,250
Losel, Friedrich, 88
Lubeck, Steven G., 239,246,
252n4
Lundman, Richard J., 3,12n2,
108,294
Lyerly, Robert R., 244
Lynam, Donald R., 86–87
Lynch, Michael J., 283,295,298
Lyons, Michael J., 37
Maahs, Jeff, 130
Maccoby, Eleanor Emmons, 334
MacIver, R. M., 6
MacLeod, Jay, 151,158
Magnusson, David, 28,87,88Mahoney, Anne Rankin, 269,
276,294
Marcos, Anastasios C., 192
Marshall, Ineke Helen, 245
Martin, Carol Lynn, 334
Martin, Randy, 17,18
Marx, Karl, 284,285,286,
289,298n2
Mason, W. Alex, 217,322
Mathews, Roger, 295
Matsueda, Ross L., 22,191,193,
194,195,259,273,274,349,
357,359
Matza, David, 182,196–202,265
Maughan, Barbara, 81
Maxwell, Kimberly A., 196
Mayeda, David Tokiharu, 112
Mays, G. Larry, 146
Mazerolle, Paul, 129,130
McCarthy, Belinda R., 293
McCarthy, John D., 217
McCord, Joan, 10,80
McCord, William, 80,200,
238,346
McDonald, James F.
McEachern, A. W., 270
McKay, Henry D., 100,103–8,
110,111–12,117,119,124,125,
133n1,153,181,229,283
McLanahan, Sara, 235–36
McLaughlin, Eugene, 277n2
McShane, Marilyn D., 8
Mead, George Herbert, 259
Meade, Anthony C., 271
Mears, Daniel P., 321
Mednick, Sarnoff A., 40–41,43,49,
50,51,345
Meier, Robert F., 75,170,193,
283,284
Meltzer, Lynn J., 45

378 author index
Menard, Scott, 68,124
Mennel, Robert M., 292
Merton, Robert K., 123–24,126,
127–28,132,133n3,143,152,
186,283
Messerschmidt, James W., 331
Messner, Steven F., 127,351,
364n1
Miller, Jody, 333
Miller, Joshua D., 86–87
Miller, Walter B., 110,143,
162–69,316
Miller, Wilbur C., 90n1
Moffitt, Terrie E., 47,87–88,360,
361,362,363
Monachesi, Elio D., 79,83
Monahan, Thomas P., 228,314
Money, John, 334
Montanino, Fred, 262
Morash, Merry, 236,328,329,
335n4
Morenoff, Jeffrey D., 118
Morris, Edward K., 12n2
Morris, Ruth R., 315
Morris, Terence, 99,109,115,116
Morrison, Helen L., 45
Morse, Barbara J., 68
Moynihan, Daniel P., 166–67,168
Mugford, Stephen, 276n2
Mullins, Christopher W., 333
Mulvey, Edward P., 195
Murchison, Carl, 65
Murphy, Patrick T., 5
Murray, Charles A., 44,45,
46,237
Needleman, Herbert L., 89
Neilson, Kathleen, 228,229
Newman, Graeme R., 297
Norland, Stephen, 314Nye, F. Ivan, 221–22,229,231,
234,314
Oates, Joyce Carol, 158
O’Connor, Gerald G., 269
Offord, D. R., 146
Ohlin, Lloyd E., 143,151–62,163,
173n2,271,290
Oliver, William, 291
Orcutt, James D., 192,215
Osgood, D. Wayne, 28,119
Pabon, Edward, 148,196
Pagani, Linda, 229
Palmer, Ted, 79,84
Pardini, Dustin, 86
Park, Robert, 103
Parsons, Talcott, 75,173n4
Pasko, Lisa, 318
Paternoster, Raymond, 21,129,
191,276,334,360
Patterson, Gerald R., 90,360
Pauly, John, 345,351
Pearson, Frank S., 345
Perlmutter, Barry F., 46
Peters, Ray DeV., 354
Petersen, David M., 99,107,108
Phillips, John C., 237,246
Pickar, Daniel B., 46
Piliavin, Irving, 20,21,200,
202,294
Piquero, Alex R., 249,250,360
Piquero, Nicole Leeper, 130
Platt, Anthony, 15,16,19,
227,292
Polk, Kenneth, 146,150
Pollak, Otto, 305,308,309–10,312
Potvin, Raymond H., 224
Pratt, Travis C., 48,249
Priyadarsini, S., 191,321

author index 379
Quay, Herbert C., 250
Quetelet, Adolphe, 99
Quicker, John C., 157
Quinney, Richard, 186–87,284,
287–88
Rabasa, Juan, 31
Radosh, Polly F., 331
Radzinowicz, Leon, 5,6,188
Rafter, Nicole Hahn, 30
Rahav, Giora, 243
Raine, Adrian, 88
Rankin, Bruce, 216.230,233,234,
237,243
Rankin, Joseph H., 161
Rathus, Spencer A., 84
Ratner, R. S., 201
Ray, Melvin C., 272–73
Rebellion, Cesar J., 237
Reckless, Walter C., 113,209,
212–15,252n1,252n2,260–61
Redl, Fritz, 91n2
Reed, Mark D., 240,246,329
Reid, Sue Titus, 36,37
Reid, William H., 50
Reinarman, Craig, 184
Reiss, Albert J., Jr., 190,294,311
Renzetti, Claire M., 8,19
Rhodes, A. Lewis, 190
Richards, Pamela, 314
Robins, Lee N., 80–81
Robinson, W. S., 112
Robison, Sophia M., 112
Rodman, Hyman, 151
Roebuck, Julian B., 262
Rogers, Joseph W., 146
Rojek, Dean G., 150,161,190,
221,224,226,238,269,272
Roman, Paul Michael, 264
Rookey, Bryan D., 318,319Rosanoff, Aaron J., 36
Rosay, Andre B., 249,250
Rosen, Lawrence, 113,126,167,
168,169,227,229,233
Rosenbaum, Jill Leslie, 276
Rosenberg, Morris, 259
Rosenberg, Raben, 217,218
Rosner, Lydia S., 298
Ross, Lee E., 217,218,224
Roth, Loren H., 39,43,45
Rothman, David J., 293
Rowe, David C., 38–39,43
Ruble, Diane N., 334
Rucker, Lila, 236
Sagarin, Edward, 67,173n3,183,
262,263,264
Salekin, Randall T., 81
Sampson, Robert J., 22,23,67,
90,110,114,115,117,118,
119–20,200,234.235–36,
252n4,293,295,297,357,
358,359,360–61,362
Sanders, Wiley B., 3,4,16,209
Sarnecki, Jerzy, 191
Satterfield, James H., 45
Scarpitti, Frank R., 215,216,
293,314
Schafer, Walter, 146,150
Schalling, D., 50
Schiff, Mara F., 276n2
Schuessler, Karl, 78,181
Schur, Edwin M., 202,264
Schwarts, Jenifer, 318,319
Schwartz, Joseph E., 113,114
Schwartz, Martin D., 295,296
Schwartz, Michael, 215
Schwendinger, Herman, 290,292
Schwendinger, Julia R., 290,292
Sealock, Miriam D., 130

380 author index
Segrave, Jeffrey O., 350
Sellin, Thorsten, 110,283
Selvin, Hanan C., 6,7
Senna, Carl, 64
Senna, Joseph J., 19
Seydlitz, Ruth., 234
Shah, Saleem A., 39,43,45,
335n1
Shannon, Lyle, 270
Shaw, Clifford R., 100,103–8,
110,111–12,117,119,
124,125,133n1,153,181,
229,283
Shelden, Randall G., 142,315,
316,317,318,322,331,332
Sheldon, William H., 29–31
Sheu, Chuen-Jim, 110,240
Shoemaker, Donald J., 5,166,170,
195,244,246,332
Short, James F., Jr., 150,157,161,
190,199,350,352
Shover, Neal, 316
Sickmund, Melissa, 3
Siddle, David A., 50
Siegel, Jane A., 331
Siegel, Larry J., 19,84
Sieverdes, Christopher M., 293
Silberg, Judy, 37
Silver, Eric, 119
Silverman, Ira J., 169
Silverman, Robert A., 321
Silverthorn, Persephanie, 361
Simcha-Fagan, Ora, 113,114
Simon, Rita James, 142,305,309,
312,316,317
Simon, William, 169
Simons, Ronald L., 87,90,120,
159,235,242,360,361
Simpson, John, 322,325
Simpson, Jon E., 269Simpson, Sally S., 331,332
Singer, Simon I., 326,327
Skipper, James K., Jr.
Slatin, Gerald T., 146
Slavin, Sidney H., 46
Sloane, Douglas M., 224
Smart, Carol, 309,312,317
Smith, Brent L., 293
Smith, Christian, 225
Smith, Daniel D., 269
Smith, Douglas A., 270,334,
346,363
Smith, William Carlson, 110
Snyder, Eloise C., 269
Snyder, Howard N., 3
Somerville, Dora B., 314
Sommers, Ira B., 332
Spears, David, 64
Spergel, Irving, 111,160–61
Spitzer, Steven, 288
Stafford, Mark, 298n1
Stanfield, Robert E., 190
Stark, Rodney, 112,222–24,226
Stattin, Hakan, 88Steffensmeier, Darrell J., 142,159,
161,316,317,318,319,322,
331,333,334
Steffensmeier, Renee H., 142,
316,317
Stein, Judith A., 196
Steinberg, Laurence, 81
Stephenson, Richard M., 293
Stevenson, Leslie, 12n3
Stewart, Eric A., 275
Stiles, Beverly L., 128
Stouthamer-Loeber, Magda,
233,242
Stowell, Jacob I., 110
Strauss, Anselm L., 8,259,333
Street, David, 269

author index 381
Streifel, Cathy, 318,333,334
Strodtbeck, Fred L., 150,161,199
Su, S. Susan, 321
Sullivan, Clyde, 79
Sutherland, Anne, 111
Sutherland, Edwin H., 37,65,77,
79–80,99,107,111,115,116,
152,181,193–96,202,212,283,
305
Suttles, Gerald D., 118
Sutton, John R., 299n5
Svensson, Robert, 235
Sweeney, Mary E., 64
Sweeten, Gary, 149
Sykes, Gresham M., 198,284
Tangri, Sandra S., 215
Tanioka, Ichiro, 244
Tannenbaum, Frank, 259,260,265
Taylor, Ian, 289
Taylor, Ralph B., 117,118,122
Tennenbaum, David J., 84
Terman, Theodore S., 64
Thatcher, Robert W., 45
Thomas, Charles W., 272,273,293
Thomas, William I., 102,305,
307–8
Thompson, Kevin, 328,329
Thompson, Laetitia L., 88
Thompson, William E., 191,193
Thornberry, Terence P., 147–48,
170,217,242,246,293,
357–59,363n1
Thornton, William E., 272,316,320
Thorsell, Bernard A., 263
Thrasher, Frederick M., 146,150,
153,259,260,265
Timasheff, Nicholas S., 8
Tittle, Charles R., 68–69,170,
224,249Toby, Jackson, 209,314
Tori, Christopher D., 46
Tracy, Paul E., 148,161,270
Tremblay, Richard E., 85
Trice, Harrison M., 264
Triplett, Ruth, 191,274,277n3
Tulchin, Simon H., 65
Turk, Austin T., 284
Turner, Stanley H., 126
Tygart, Clarence E., 146
Udry, J. Richard, 354
Uggen, Christopher, 330
Unnever, James D., 250
Vacc, Nicholas A., 191
Vagg, Jon, 276n2
Van Voorhis, Patricia, 229
Van Welzenis, Ingrid, 217
Vaz, Edmund W., 142
Vedder, Clyde B., 314
Venables, Peter H., 51
Vitelli, Romeo, 88
Vold, George, 4,15,17,18,19,30,
36,65,83,250,283
Von Hentig, Hans, 28
Voss, Harwin L., 99,107,
108,147,148,156,157,190,
216,268
Wacker, Mary Ellen Ellyson, 329
Waldo, Gordon, 74,78–79,83,84
Walker, Jeffery T., 133n1
Wallerstein, Judith, 237
Walsh, Anthony J., 51,130
Walters, Glenn D., 30,41–42
Ward, David A., 68–69
Warner, Jerry T., 294
Warr, Mark, 193–94,235,360
Warren, Marguerite Q., 79

382 author index
Wasserman, Michael, 293
Weber, Linda R., 244
Weiner, Neil Alan, 345
Weiner, Norman L., 294
Weis, Joseph G., 190,314
Weitoff, Gunilla, 236
Weitzer, Ronald, 118
Welch, Michael R., 224
Wellford, Charles F., 277n3,345,351
Wells, L. Edward, 161,217,218,
219,230,233,234
Werthman, Carl, 265
West, Cornell, 291
Whimbey, Arthur, 64
Whimbey, Linda Shaw, 64
White, Helen Raskin, 129
White, Jennifer L., 81
White, Mervin, 223,226,240
White, Thomas W., 40,41–42
Whiteheard, John T., 271
Whyte, William F., 153
Wiatrowski, Michael D., 146.220
Wikstrom, Per Olof H., 119
Wilkinson, Karen, 210,227
Wilks, Judith A., 108
Williams, Frank P., III, 8
Williams, J. Sherwood, 166
Williams, Jay R., 272
Williams, Linda M., 331
Willie, Charles V., 294Wilson, James D., 68,346
Wilson, William Julius
Windle, Michael, 84–85,322
Wineman, David, 91n2
Winner, Lawrence T., 271
Wise, Nancy B., 314–15
Wolfgang, Marvin E., 161,165,
269–70
Wong, Siu Kwong, 110
Wood, Peter B., 228,248,364n2
Wooden, Kenneth, 5
Wooden, Wayne S., 170
Wright, Bradley R. Enter, 22,360
Wright, Karen E., 227,235
Wright John Paul, 162
Xu, Jiangmin, 241
Yablonsky, Lewis, 80,141,150,
228,232
Yoerger, Karen, 360
Young, Jock, 295
Young, Pauline V., 110
Zahn, Margaret A., 318,319
Zeleny, L. D., 65
Zetterberg, Hans L., 8
Zingraff, Matthew, 242
Znaniecki, Florian, 102
Zuckerman, Harriet, 126

subject index 383
Subject Index
Academic (school) performance
and,43,45,68–69,143,
145–47,238,241
ADD. See Attention deficit disorder
ADHD. See Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder
Adolescence-limited pathway, 251
Anomie, 100,120–33,133n3,141,
152,159,181,347,349,
350–51,354
adaptations of, 125–26
ANS. See Autonomic nervous system
Antisocial behavior (ASB), 42–43,
72,80,86–87,353
ASB. See Antisocial behavior
Atavists (born criminality), 29,35,306
Attention deficit disorder (ADD),
42–43,47–48
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder (ADHD), 47–48,
87–88
Autonomic nervous system (ANS),
49–51,87–88
Barkada (Filipino peer group), 195
Biological/biosocial explanations,
6,27–54,306–7,354Blocked opportunities, 158–59,161
Body type (somatotype), 28–34,42
Bourgeoisie, 285,288
“Broken homes,” 6–7,227–30,
231,238,252n3,314,349
Capitalism (capitalists), 284,
288–89,351,352
Cartographic School, 99–100
Castration complex (penis envy),
307–8
Causality, issue of, 6–7
Chicago Area Projects, 108–9,116,118
Childhood, concept of, 292
Child-Saving Movement, 227,292
Church. See Religious factors
Class conflict, 285–86
Classical School, 4,15–23.See also
Rational choice theory
Collective efficacy, 116,119–20
Concordance rates, 34–35,37
Conditionability, 48–53.See also
Autonomic nervous system
Conflict (violence), 165,239,314,
319,352–53
Conflict theory/perspective, 111,
264,283,284,296

384 subject index
Conformity, 124
Containment (self-concept) theory,
212,213,260–61,354
Control theories, 148,171,172n1,
202,203,209–52,321
Core personality, 76,79,82,354
Crime(s), 3,5,18
of accommodation/resistance,
287–88
of control, 287
of domination/repression, 287
of economic domination,
289,290
general theory of, 247, 249
of government, 287
Criminal behavior, 15,20–21,
153–54,183,185–87,
283–84,346
cultural conflicts, 110
Cultural transmission, 110–12
Culture of poverty, 117–18,128,165,
166,168–69,235–36,331
Deductive theory, 8
Defended neighborhood, 118
Delinquency
academic (school) performance
and,43,45,68–69,143,
145–47,238,241
“broken homes” and, 6–7,227–30,
231,238,252n3,314,349
capitalism (capitalists) and, 284,
288–89,351,352
conditionability and, 48–53
economic conditions and, 107,
111,117,159,290,324–25
ethnic/racial influence on, 66,
69,106,110,116,158–59,
169,233–34,241,268,291,
292,294,350,359family factors (relationships) and,
43,47,117,209–10,221,
227–39,243,314,335n4,351,
357–58,360
feeblemindedness and, 35,64–67
gender/sex roles and, 142,
309–11,315,319–20,331,
333,361
growth (concentric) zones (of a
city) and, 102,103–6,125
Inheritance and, 34–43
intelligence (general) and, 63–70
learning disabilities and, 44–48
opportunity structure
(differential) and, 122,143,
151–62,290
organized crime and, 160
physical location of, 103–9,112,
113–14,119,133
rates of, 3,66,158
religious factors and, 43,221–27,
361,362
school system factors and, 39,
43,45,68,107,117,144–45,
147–50,238–43,291
self-concept (image) and, 113,
211,212,214–19,259,
265–69,354,355,356,364n3
social class and, 16,17,142,147,
166,171–72,184,220,287,
298,299n3,310,324,328
social factors and, 100
theory, 345–64
Delinquency, types of, 141–73
conflict (violence), 165,239,
314,319,352–53
criminal (theft/homicide/
property destruction), 113,
116–17,118,124,161,162,
165,311

subject index 385
female, 36,106,271,
305–36,361
gang (subculture), 4,73,80,
108,112,141,143,
150–51,152,154,159–61,
241,259,265–66,284,
316,318
lower-class, 10–11,66,101,109,
122,127,133,143,162–69,
289,296,308,328,349,359
middle-class, 6,51,66,85,144,
156–57,165,168,169–71,
260,268,290,292,310,358
retreatist(drug-oriented), 152,
155,173n2,191–92,223–25,
235,242,273,348
Delinquent attitudes, 243
Delinquent behavior, 269–75
Demonology, 4
Deviancy, 356–57
Differential association, 11n2,113,
152,181,183–96,212,321,
348,349.See also Learning
theory; Peer group
identification, 187
social organization, 184
Division of labor, 122–23
Dramatization of evil, 259
Drift (neutralization) theory,
195–202
Drug use. See Retreatist (drug-
oriented) gang culture
Ecological approach studies,
102,181
Economic conditions, 107,111,
117,159,290,324–25.
See also Culture of poverty;
Socioeconomic status
Ego, 71,74,220,356Emancipation, female (women’s
movement), 311–13,316,
317–19,335n3
Environmental factors, 36,45,
99,360
common/within-family, 38–39
Ethnic/racial factors, 66,69,
106,110,116,158–59,169,
233–34,241,268,291,292,
294,350,359
Family factors (relationships),
43,47,117,209–10,221,
227–39,243,314,335n4,351,
357–58,360
Family tree studies
Juke, 35
Kallikak family, 64–65
Feeblemindedness, 35,64–67
Female
-dominated (headed)
households, 158,162–63,164,
167–69,229,326,329
emancipation (women’s
movement), 3 11–13, 316,
317–19, 335 n3
Female delinquency, 36,106,271,
305–36,361.See also Power-
control theory
Femininity (female behavior), 306–9,
313–23,331,334,335n1
Feminist theory, of female
delinquency, 330–33
Focal concerns (lower-class), 163–64
The Four Wishes, 308
Free will, 15,16,19,23
Gang (subculture), 4,73,80,
108,112,141,143,
150–51,152,154,159–61,

386 subject index
241,259,265–66,284,
316,318
Gender/sex roles, 142,309–11,
315,319–20,331,333,361
Generalized other, 259
General (revised) strain theory
(GST), 129–31,132,133n4,
362.See also Anomie
Genetic factors, 41
Growth (concentric) zones (of a
city), 102,103–6,125
GST. See General strain theory
Gypsies (Gypsy culture), 111–12
“Hellfire and Delinquency,” 222,
226–27
Id,71,74–75
I-level. See Interpersonal maturity
Inheritance, 34–43.See also Family tree
studies; Twins (adoptees) studies
Integrated theories, 345–64
Intelligence (general), 63–70
Intelligence tests (IQ tests), 64,89
Interactional theory, 357,359
International theory, 181–83
Interpersonal maturity (I-level),
79,83–84
IQ tests. See Intelligence tests
(IQ tests)
Juvenile court, 3,5,16,19,62,66,
89,104,105,109,112,125,
142,188,215,216,223,230,
236,264,266–67,270–71,
294–95,299n5,332
Labeling (theory/perspective), 212,
219,259–77,276n2,277n3,
284,332,352,361Learning disabilities, 44–48
Learning theory, 21,166,187–88,
192,349,351,359
Left-idealist theory, 295–96
Left-realist theory, 295–96
Life-course (persistent)
perspective/pathway, 48,86,
251,274,362–63.See also
Low self-control theory
Looking glass self, 259
Lower-class, 10–11,66,101,109,
122,127,133,143,162–69,
289,296,308,328,349,359
Low self-control theory, 130
Lumpenproletarians ,286
Manifest delinquency, 73
Marxism paradigm, 286–87
Marxist theory, 284,286–87,289,
295,297,311,326
Masculinity (masculine behavior),
85–86,163,169,199,309,
311,313,316,321
complex, 307
hypothesis, 315
Maturation (peak of delinquency),
147,161,162,269–70,352
Micro/macro theories, 8
Middle-class, 6,51,66,85,144,
156–57,165,168,169–71,
260,268,290,292,310,358
Middle class measuring rod, 6,
143–51,171
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory (MMPI), 78–79,
83,250
MMPI. See Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory
Mobilization for Youth
Program, 162

subject index 387
Moral insanity, 61.See also
Psychopathy
Moving to Opportunity (MTO),
116–17
MTO. See Moving to Opportunity
Multiple pathway, or
developmental perspective,
87,88,360.See also
Adolescence-limited pathway;Life-course (persistent)perspective/pathway
Near group, 80,150
Neighborhood integration, 153,160
Neoclassical School, 19
Neo-Marxist, 286,293,297,324,
351,354
Neutralization, techniques of,
197–98,200–201
Oedipus complex, 71–72
One-Sex Peer Unit, 163
Opportunity structure
(differential), 122,143,
151–62,290
Organized crime, 160
Peer group (associations), 113,129,
131,183,190–95,199,217,
320,321,327,347–48,351,
354,355–56,358
Personal control systems, 211,
212–19
Personality, 355
body type and, 28–34
characteristics, 78–89
factors, 50–51, 53
Type I, Type II, Type III, 73
Physical features, 306–7
Positive School, 5,6Positivistic theory, 5–6
Poverty. See Culture of poverty
Power-control theory, 284,
323–30,324,336n5
Praxis ,297
Primary deviance, 261–62,265
Psychoanalysis (psychoanalytic)
concepts, 70–75
castration complex, 307–8
ego,71,74,220,356
id,71,74–75
Oedipus complex, 71–72
superego, 71,72,73,74,
212,220
unconscious, 10,71,72,74–75
Psychoanalytic (psychiatric)
approach, 6,62,89,212,248
Psychological theories, 61–90
Psychological traits, 39
Psychopathy, 49,79–81.See also
Antisocial behavior;Sociopathy
Racial factors. See Ethnic/Racial
factors
Radical theory/perspective, 264,
283–99,354
Rational choice theory, 16,
20–22,115
Reaction formation, 143,145
Reference groups, 127,187
Reintergrative (shaming),
276–77n2
Relative deprivation, 127–28
Religious factors, 43,221–27,
361,362
Resilience/resistance to
delinquency, 242,322
Retreatist (drug-oriented) gang
culture, 152,155,173n2,

388 subject index
191–92,223–25,235,242,
273,348
Revised strain theory, 321.See also
General strain theory
Rorschach tests, 74,83
School system, 39,43,45,68,107,117,
144–45,147–50,238–43,291
Secondary deviance, 261–62,265
Secret deviance, 263
Self-concept (image), 113,211,
212,214–19,259,265–69,
267,354,355,356,364n3
Self-control theory, 22,130,
247–51,322,355,358,360
Self-fulfilling prophecy, 271,272
Self-report delinquency, 67,
222–23,229,231–32,240,
244,272,274,314–16,328,
332,350
SES. See Socioeconomic status
Sexual abuse, 322,323,331
Sexual behavior, 311,313
Significant others, 202,216,274
Situational theory, 181–83
Situation of company, 199
Social bond theory, 39,118,129,
194,219,240,242,244–46,
322,329,347,348,354,355,
356,358
Social characteristics, 119
Social class, 16,17,142,147,166,
171–72,184,220,287,298,
299n3,310,324,328
Social control theory, 101,
107–8,191,202,219–47,262,320,329,332,348,351,
354,355
Social disorganization,
100–120,132,141,181,
350–51,354
Socialist-feminist theory, 331
Social nature, of delinquency, 141
Socioeconomic status (SES), 240,
324,326
Sociopathy, 80–81,82,261–62
Solidarity
mechanical, 122
organic, 122
Spurious relationship, 7
Status offenses, 314–15
Structural conditions, 354
Subterranean value systems, 198
Superego, 71,72,73,74,212,220
Surplus labor, 286
Theory, 8–10
validity/verification of, 9–10
Twins (adoptees) studies, 34–35,
40–41,66
Unconscious, 10,71,72,74–75
Violence. See Conflict
Wayward girl (unadjusted girl)
syndrome, 314
Women’s movement. See
Emancipation, female
(women’s movement)
Youth culture theory, 170–71