General Strain Theory Summary

Thirteen-year-old Peter White, is an average eighth grader. He is captain of his soccer team, has a 3.0 GPA, and has a handful of friends. At school, Peter does not cause any trouble and is liked by his teachers. He participates in class and teachers categorize him as a kind and respectful student. Peter comes from a two-parent household and has a younger brother who is 5 years old. Lately, his parents have noticed he has trouble sleeping and some nights he wets his bed. On Friday April 27, 2018, Peter was accused of sexually abusing another boy at school, Jack Martinez. Jack states that after soccer practice, Peter and he were left alone in the locker room waiting for their rides home. This is when Peter insisted they play a “game.” The game

consisted the two boys taking their clothes off and touching each other’s private parts. Jack opposed to Peter’s game, but was threatened with getting kicked of the team if he did not play with him. Jack’s parents discovered what happened because he feared going to school the following week.
After news of Jack’s confession, five more boys came forward sharing the similar experiences they had with Peter. The previous young men did not share their experience because of the threat Peter gave. When interrogated by the police, Peter denied his actions multiple times, but finally confessed. Peter was expelled from his school and a thorough investigation was conducted on the White family to determine a proper punishment. Police discovered that Peter also sexually abused his younger brother several times when they were alone. However, after various sessions of therapy, it was discovered that Peter’s father had been abusing both him and his brother for years. Peter’s father, Dan, was always present in the house. He works a 9-5 job, attends Peter’s games, and is always there to help with his sons’ needs. However, Dan indulged in a couple of drinks every night after work. Dan’s wife works night shifts to make extra money, therefore is not aware of Dan’s activities. So, every night after the kids go to sleep Dan sneaks into their bedroom to play a “game.” For Peter, this game has been going on for eight years. However, Peter also explains that he began this behavior after Dan told him he was getting too old for him and preferred his brother over him. As a result of Dan’s comment, Peter went to school the next day and began his delinquency.
Theories:
The first theory that can be used to explain Peter’s behavior is imitation theory. Imitation theory states we learn through imitating the behavior of others. The theory presented by Gabriel Tarde explains that people are not born criminal, but become criminal because of social factors. In the case of Peter, Tarde proposes two laws that apply to Peter’s behavior. These are that people imitate one another in proportion to the amount of contact they have with each other and it suggests that inferior people imitate superiors (Anderson). Peter had been dealing with his father’s behavior for eight years, therefore his constant contact with his father in this manner led him to imitate his behavior. Additionally, since Peter was inferior to his father he imitated his behavior because it was normal for him.
To add to this, Tonkonoff dissects Tarde’s theory to explain how crime is a social phenomenon. In the article, Crime as social excess: reconstructing Gabriel Tarde’s criminal sociology, Tonkonoff examines how crime is imitation. He explains that crime is a product of example. An individual participates in crime because it can be repeated and may even become a tradition. Tonkonoff adds that according to Tarde, crime is a result of co-adaptation meaning it originated from a previous example that the individual may or may not be aware of (Tonkonoff, 2014). Moreover, Tonkonoff discusses the cascade principle in the imitation theory. This principle states that the inferior will often imitate the superior. This may be a result of the inferior viewing another as socially higher and as result imitate their behavior to gain prestige (Tonkonoff, 2018). The cascade principle, specifically, relates to Peter’s delinquency. Peter and his father have a close relationship and it is evident through his sessions that he has great admiration toward Dan. For this reason, Peter uses the same techniques to engage his victims with a clear conscience. Peter’s perception of his father as an admirable superior is what led him to imitate his father.
The second theory that explains Peter’s behavior is Equivalent Group Hypothesis. The Equivalent Group Hypothesis was proposed by victimologists to explain how victims and offenders are the same. This means that a person is often victimized and becomes an offender. Their victimization can lead to frustration and may lead them to seek revenge or control. In this case, Peter was a victim of sexual abuse for eight years. He was silent and kept his traumas to himself. Therefore, he built up frustration toward his father abuse and it led him to seek out control. Performing those sexual behaviors toward his peers served as a mechanism of social control. Peter felt that if he inflicted the behavior it would prevent further pain from those who posed as a potential threat to him.
Correspondingly, Erdmann and Reinecke’s article, “Youth Violence in Germany: Examining the Victim- Offender Overlap During the Transition From Adolescence to Early Adulthood,” examines how the victim and offender are portrayed to be two different group when they are actually similar. Erdmann also adds that victims often become offenders, therefore their study focused on the relationship between violent victimization and violent offending over the course of adolescence and young adulthood. The researchers used a self-report study that began when the target population at the age of 13 and ended at the age of 30. The researchers found that the overlap between victim and offender was higher in adolescence. For example, at the age of 20, 42.8% of violent offenders were also victims of violence. Thus, at a younger age a victim also tends to be an offender (Erdmann & Reinecke, 2018). Similar, research by Margit Averdjik adds that previous victimization increased the individual’s chance of using violent responses in conflicts Therefore, their prior victimization impacted future decision making and lead to offending (Averdijk, 2016).
Secondly, in the article “Strength of the victim-offender overlap depend on the relationship between the victim and perpetrator,” Gregory Zimmerman studies how the relationship between the victim and offender impacts future offending. Researchers’ interviewed youth in Chicago neighborhood clusters to examine the relationship between victimization and offending. It was found that violent offending was higher among those who were victimized. They found that the odds of violent offending are 76% higher among those were victimized that those who were not. More specifically, the odds of offending were higher among youth males. The most important finding in the research was that victimization by a family member or peer was significantly related to future offending (Zimmerman, 2017).
As a result of these findings, the equivalent group hypothesis support how Peter’s sexual abuse contributed to delinquency. Peter had been victimized by a close family member for eight years, thus his desire for control guided his decision-making. The above research supports, how Peter’s victimization impacted his decision making in becoming an offender.
The third theory that applies to Peter’s behavior is the General Strain Theory (GST).

Robert Agnew’s GST argues that any person on any social class can commit criminal behavior after experiencing the negative effects of strain (Anderson,). Therefore, strain can be caused by different factors that are not solely economic. Additionally, Agnew explains that crime is a result of negative states resulting from anger, frustration, and adverse emotions that lead to destructive social relationships. Agnew adds that anger is an important factor when deciding to commit because it can inspire the individual’s desire for

revenge.
Furthermore, Sherod Thaxton’s article, “When Criminal Coping is Likely: An Examination of Conditioning Effects in General Strain Theory,” examines how the effects of strain impact the likelihood of crime.

Thaxton surveyed 6000 juveniles across the United States to determine is strains such as perception of the police, school environment, and victimization impact an individual’s chance of criminal coping. The survey was created to identify ten risk factors that can impact the if the individual chooses to cope with strain through criminal activity. These ten risk factors include: sex, low attachment to mother, poor parental monitoring, impulsivity, risk-seeking, neutralization, guilt, low school commitment, and delinquent peer commitment. Thaxton found that these ten risk factors indeed do increase the likelihood of criminal coping. Individuals who were exposed to these strains and had negative emotions chose crime more frequently (Thaxton, 2017).

Hence, according to the General Strain Theory, Peter’s delinquency was a result of the sexual abuse he suffered. Peter’s poor relationship with his mother and denial from his father contributed to his delinquency. Although Peter was constantly sexually abused by his father, he felt close to him in an unusual way. This is why Peter was angered to learn his father preferred his brother over him. So, when he went to school the next day he was motivated by his emotions. As Thaxton explained, Peter decided to cope through criminality because

of the strains he was exposed to.
Theory of Best Fit:
The theory that best fits Peter White is the Equivalent Group Hypothesis because it takes into account his previous victimization. Peter was strongly impacted by the relationship he had with his father, therefore, it impacted how he perceived his relationships with others. The General Strain Theory acknowledges the strain Peter faced, it does not recognize the impact of his victimization. The imitation theory, on the other hand, is able to explain how Peter learned his behavior through the relationship with his father, but it does not explain how the relationship impacted Peter’s emotions. It also fails to explain why Peter decided to begin engaging in delinquent behaviors. Therefore, the equivalent group hypothesis is able to recognize Peter as a victim and offender and not just in one dimension.