Criminologists investigate the causation of crime and the elements that encourage individuals to participate in deviant behavior. Through this examination, the application of theory provides a method of assessing the diversity of crime, expounding upon the occurrence, location, frequency, and motivation of perpetration. Nagin and Pogarsky (2001) discovered a correlation between the psychological rewards of negative reinforcement to that of conditioning an individual to participate in deviant behavior through the process of rationalizing and justifying the commission of delinquent acts.
Meier’s (1977, p.1) confirmed that Sykes (1974) identified the modern wave of criminology as being “radical”, evolving from the sociological characteristics that are associated to the commission of crime. Criminological theory is critically evaluated in relation to society, the occurrence of crime, the causation of crime, and the philosophical features pertaining to crime control and punitive decisions (Einstadter & Henry, 2006). The next section will address the development of deviant behavior relating to an individual’s social construction of behavior, values, and reinforcements that appear to initiate within the home and are further influenced within peer groups.
Social Construction of Deviant Behavior
Critical theorists concentrate on how social arrangements, status, position, and relationships correlate with issues of power, resulting in some form of conflict between social groups and structures (Straus, 2002). Deviance is a term that may be interchangeably utilized to describe dysfunctional behavior and strain (Spector & Kitsuse, 1977) that is prevalent in social contexts and perceived to be a sociological predicament (as cited in Schneider, 1985). The investigation of deviant behavior pertaining to sociological theory is classified as “social pathology” in which social reactions to acts of delinquency are explicated and investigated (Kitsuse, 1962). Deviance is classified as being situational in which society plays a role in the classification of unconventional behavior regarding social order (Hewitt & Hall, 1973). In 1960, Cressey suggested that “epidemiology” was the examination of the occurrence and distribution of criminal behavior that transpires throughout society (Akers & Sellers, 2009, p. 3).
The incidents of criminal behavior may be attributed to a particular group or groups of deviants as well within an individualized manner. The examination of the theoretical component(s) associated to social learning initiated in 1947 with Sutherland’s differential association theory. The differential association theory (Sutherland, 1947; Sutherland & Cressey, 1974) attributed deviant behavior to be a behaviorism that directly correlated with sociological theory and social learning theory (as cited in Akers et al., 1979).
It was during this time that theories pertaining to deterrence and control (Hirschi, 1969) began to materialize; however, the social learning theory was the prominent (Akers, 1977; Conger, 1976; 1977; Feldman, 1977) perspective that accredited reinforcement (Harris, 1975; 1977; Eaton, 1974; Meier & Johnson; 1977; Hirschi & Hindelang, 1977) as a sociological and behavioral approach to applying theory to the explanation of deviance (as cited in Akers et al., 1979). The theoretical tenets associated to the learning process are framed by empirical support (Skinner, 1953; Honig; 1966) that is typically retrieved within a laboratory (Ullmann & Krasner, 1969; Bandura 1969; 1977; McLaughlin, 1971; Staats, 1975) with applied experimental conditions (as cited in Akers et al., 1979). In summary, the differential association theory attributes criminal behavior to be learned from interactions that rationalize and inspire an individual or group to participate in deviant behavior.
Akers’s Social Learning Theory
The principle of the social learning theory is that social behavior is operant in nature because behavior that is consistently constructed is based on rewards or consequences. Therefore, social learning may be cultivated from either imitating or modeling the behaviorisms of others (Akers et al., 1979). The modification of behavior through both positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement is a process accredited to differential reinforcement. The social learning theory is comprised of two fundamental elements (a) respondent and (b) operant behaviorisms (Burgess & Akers, 1966) that aid in social learning (as cited in Jacoby, 2004). Differential reinforcement (Akers et al., 1979) is a term that refers to the conceptualization of behaviors that may be deviant or conventional; furthermore, these behaviors are learned from individuals or groups that influence norms, values, and morals. Behavioral reinforcers are not necessarily social; there are instances in which nonsocial reinforcers influence behavior through the depiction or representation of what is behaviorally permissible.
The association of an individual’s social reinforcements is related to those who endorse behavior whether it is positive or negative. Social organizations may reflect behavior learned from one’s peers, parents, and members of society who are in positions of authority (Akers et al., 1979). Due to the fact that individuals strive to see how others perceive them, if they are perceived as deviant, they may be more inclined to behave in such a manner; however, this is not true in all instances (Akers & Sellers, 2009). There is a positive correlation between those who are labeled as being deviant (Goffman, 1963) to owning up to that label and participating in unconventional behavior; however, the label itself should not be credited for creating deviant behavior (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009). Akers and Burgess (1966) applied Sutherland’s (1937; 1940; 1949) criminological perspective of explaining criminal behavior and coined “differential association-reinforcement” to pertain to operant conditioning, concentrating on the behavioral principles utilized by psychologists (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009, p. 88).
The social learning theory contains characteristics that Burgess and Akers (1966) identified to be: (a) conditioning involuntary behavior, (b) stimuli that is both environmental and internal, presenting signals, (c) the degree in which compensation or consequences are afforded, and (d) the elements related to the modification of behavior (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009). Framed by Sutherland’s differential association theory (Akers, 1985), the social learning theory was established on the symbolic interactionism theory (Sandstrom, Martin, & Fine, 2003), which bases social interface on how individuals interrelate with one another, with the ability to perceive themselves in relation to others (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009). Through the process of differential association, an individual elects to participate in unconventional behavior while being exposed to a differential reinforcement that is eventually rationalized and possibly neutralized (Akers & Sellers, 2009). In summation, it is possible for an individual to establish a model of behavior that was socially constructed based on the appearance of what behaviors are rewarding, even if they are unconventional.
Agnew’s General Strain Theory
Strain is a concept that is perceived to be more prevalent throughout underprivileged communities as the lower socioeconomic standards epitomize disproportionate opportunities for achievement. The examination of social disorganization dates back to 1938 with Merton’s research on social structure, anomie, and the ideals pertaining to equal opportunity to be successful (Vito et al., 2007). Merton’s strain theory did not apply to all forms of deviant behavior and therefore it was not a model that was empirically supported. Agnew’s (1992) general strain theory provides the opportunity to examine strain experienced in relation to criminal and noncriminal adaptations (as cited in Broidy & Agnew, 1997). In other words, there are members of society that experience strain that do not elect to participate in criminal behavior; therefore, the complexity of strain is recognized as being diverse, warranting further exploration as to the affects of strain in general. In broadening this perspective, strain can be investigated within certain populations and environments in the examination of the sociological aspects associated to strain.
The general strain theory was developed by Agnew (1992) to generalize the explanation of criminal behavior in which strain consisted of three extensive areas: (a) failing to accomplish an objective, (b) the presence of an unpleasant incentive, and (c) the elimination of an attractive stimulus (Vito et al., 2007). The general strain theory expands the sources of strain to include adaptations attributed to the participation of criminal behavior (Broidy & Agnew, 1997). Negative results from the strain that is experienced can cause individual’s to react either conventionally or unconventionally while attempting to cope with the stressor. An interesting conceptualization of Agnew’s strain theory is that individual’s can experience stress vicariously, from other’s encountering strain (Bernard et al., 2010). Anticipated pressure or stress can result in apprehension as well; however, strain from a personal and vicarious perspective appears to be much more detrimental versus that of the anticipated form of strain (Bernard et al., 2010).
Agnew incorporated four specific features of strain that directly encourages delinquent acts: (a) when individuals are perceived to be mistreated or encountered unjustly, (b) when the strain is rigorous, (c) when strain is the result of low social control, and (d) when an individual is coerced or required to produce unlawful coping strategies (Bernard et al., 2010). Those individuals that demonstrate an elevated level of negative emotionality in addition to having a low level of control or restraint are more opt to participate in deviant behavior when they experience strain. However, those individuals who do not necessarily represent this population have the ability to implement conventional coping tactics in addressing general strain that is experienced (Bernard et al., 2010).
Agnew’s general strain theory was and is most often applied to address the motivations associated to adolescent deviant behavior. Agnew claimed that negative relationships in which the situation is destructive and difficult to escape from, directly influences negative emotions that result in strain (Bernard et al., 2010). Therefore, participation in deviant behavior functions as an apparatus to coping with strain experienced and these responses are associated to interpersonal situations that are problematic. In response to the strain that individuals experience, substance abuse and contribution to aberrant behavior appears to be the methods utilized to manage negative emotions (Bernard et al., 2010). The next section identifies the similarities between Akers’s social learning theory and Agnew’s general strain theory.
Similarities of Akers’s Social Learning Theory and Agnew’s General Strain Theory
The social learning theory and the general strain theory do have similarities regarding the motivation to participate in delinquent behavior in the achievement of goals. While the general strain theory strives to explain criminal behavior as being the result of one achieving their goal, the social learning theory attributes delinquent behavior to relate to the conceptualization of learning or emulating behaviorisms (Barkan, 2009). Both of these theories utilize social order and social structure to explain normative behavior and delinquent behavior within specific geographical regions. While the social learning theory focuses on the process of socialization in explicating criminality, the general strain theory embraces the strain that is received from individuals within negative social conditions (Barkan, 2009). Both theories incorporate a sociological component in the explanation of crime and both social and structural concepts are compulsory in the examination of why an individual participates in deviant behavior.
Social learning theory assesses the likelihood of deviant behavior as a result of being exposed to variables that shape and at times may even manage an individual’s behavior (Akers & Sellers, 2009). Therefore, the social learning theory assumes that learning is a progression with interactions occurring within a specific environment or social structure that ultimately directs behavior. Agnew’s general strain theory utilizes a structural strategy to investigate industrial needs and one’s adjustment to strain and stress in relation to deviancy. Another similarity between both the social learning theory and the general strain theory is that both may interchangeably function as a precursor for one another.
For example, an individual that is experiencing strain can learn from others in how to adapt and function in a society that is frustrating, applying the negative emotion to an unconventional action, or imitating what others elect to do in expressing strain. Additionally, an individual may participate in delinquent behavior because they have in some fashion conditioned themselves to behave in a particular manner, not realizing that their actions are a result of the stress and strain that is experienced (Akers & Sellers, 2009). The general strain theory combines elements of the social disorganization theory to the investigation of community disparities and the occurrence of crime (Agnew, 1999). Another parallel concept between both the social learning theory and the general strain theory is that of negativity.
The general strain theory attributes negative emotions and relationships that result in strain or stress while the social learning theory encompasses negative affiliation or unconventional conditioning to the achievement of goals. When strain is experienced, there are several characteristics that relate to conditioning individuals to participate in deviant behavior to include the utilization of conventional coping strategies (Agnew et al., 2002). In summation, in the process of adapting to the strain that is experienced in society, an individual may utilize methods that have been socially or vicariously learned in addressing the perceived constraint. Although both the social learning theory and the general strain theory are categorized as being sociological theories (Agnew, 1992), there are disparities in the application of these theories to the causation of delinquency.
Differences of Akers’s Social Learning Theory and Agnew’s General Strain Theory
One of the fundamental differences between the social learning theory and the general strain theory is that strain theories associate delinquent behavior to social class (Agnew, 1985). The social learning theory attributes acts of delinquency to be associated to either the exposure or experience of participating in deviant behavior and the reinforcement that is achieved to encourage this participation. Delinquency pertaining to one’s social class limits the range and occurrence in crime commission. Such a deliberation is expected to take place especially when delinquency is prevalent among the middle class population (Braithwaite, 1981; Elliott & Ageton, 1979; Elliott & Huizinga, 1983), making social class a concept that intermittently explains deviant behaviorisms (as cited in Agnew, 1985). Agnew’s general strain theory is categorized as a social structural theory while Akers’s social learning theory is classified as being a social disorganization theory based on social learning (Vito et al., 2007).
Social learning is comprised of elements associated to differential association, differential reinforcement, defining standards of behaving, and imitating behavior that is learned (Akers, 1999). The examination of the social structure in explaining criminal behavior based on the perceived strain or stress may be attributed to variables such as: (a) family, (b) class, (c) age, (d) sex or gender, (e) school, (f) peers, and (g) race (Akers, 1999). However, one of the differences between the examinations of the structural elements to explaining the occurrence of crime is that the social learning theory applies principles that have been learned. The general strain theory utilizes negative relationships to be the motivating factors in participating in deviant behavior, whereas the social learning theory attributes such behavior as being the product of unconventional relationships and affiliations (Agnew, 1992). However, “social structure is hypothesized to have an effect on the individual’s behavior through its effect on the social learning process” (Akers, 1999, p. 70).
Both the social learning theory and the general strain theory are classified as sociological theories of explaining criminal behavior. Agnew’s general strain theory pertains to crime from a psychosocial perspective (Broidy, 2001) while Akers’s social learning theory is best associated with crime and social processes. The strain theory purports that individuals are coerced to participate in deviant behavior due to the expression of negative emotion or strain experienced, while the social learning theory rationalizes deviancy to be acceptable based on societal forces (Agnew, 1992). An examination of the theoretical contributions that the social learning theory and the general strain theory have had on the study of criminology is explored in the next section.
Theoretical Contributions to Criminology: A Historical Perspective
Classical criminology is framed by symbolic interactionism in which theory is utilized to explore the meaning of crime (Bernard et al., 2010). In the examination of social control, social learning, and behaviorisms, symbolic interactionism is the perspective that is utilized to contemplate the opportunity for an individual to participate in deviant behavior (Vito et al., 2007). The combination of operant conditioning and features of cognitive psychology create the social learning theory in which learning results from direct and vicarious experiences (Bernard et al., 2010). Social organization is given prominence in identifying the disparities in crime in regards to one’s identity and their individual perspective of themselves in relation to society (Best & Luckenbill, 1980). The process of identifying whether or not an individual is a deviant can be attributed to patterns of socialization (Ulmer, 2000).
Johnson (1973; 1991) established a commitment typology that identifies the structure of personal relationships (as cited in Ulmer, 2000). The three different forms of commitment include: (a) the structural commitment associated to external restrain, (b) the personal commitment that is based on internal judgment and behavioral selection, and (c) the moral commitment that pertains to an individual’s level of restraint (Johnson, 1973). However, Bandura (1977) did not believe that all behavior that is observed will be emulated but rather the behavior and the reinforcements pertaining to compensation are what influences behavioral patterns (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009).
Criminology embodies a vast array of knowledge pertaining to the occurrence of crime and acts of delinquency in which this sort of behavior is considered to be a social phenomenon in and of itself (Sutherland et al., 1992). Historically, explanations pertaining to the causation of crime were based on a “welfare solution” in which concern was on reformation with little interest on “criminogenic” opportunities (as cited in Garland & Sparks, 2000, p. 9). Criminological theories address the social and legal inquiry pertaining to deviant behavior.
Two avenues that are most often investigated are the variation of crime and the propensity for certain populations to participate in criminal behavior more so than others (Akers & Sellers, 2009). Foucault (1977) in conjunction with Durkheim, Marx, Mead and Simmel, equipped criminologists with the ability to view crime from a modern perspective based on the sociological elements of criminology (as cited in Garland & Sparks, 2000).
Sociological constraint dates back to Durkheim’s (1897; 1951) examination of the features that cultivate deviance and conventionality throughout society (as cited in Ulmer, 2000). Durkheim’s principle of functional analysis implies that there are functional needs and requirements to be met within society. Behaviors are functional and dysfunctional and directly affect the arrangement of individuals; furthermore, society judges what is considered to be typical and atypical behavior (Straus, 2002).
Durkheim claimed that cultural components subsist throughout society ascribing objectives to obtaining prosperity and the motivation to act on the methods that could ultimately lead to a sense of esteem (Bernard et al., 2010). Bertalanffy (1901-1972), a biologist who offered an alternative perspective to cause and effect reasoning, introduced the social systems theory reflective of the many subsystems within society responsible for forming a whole system (as cited in Straus, 2002).
Social ecology refers to the manner in which human relationships are cultivated and influenced by their environment. Shaw and McKay (1900-1933) investigated the rate of delinquency in regards to ethnicity and geographical structure while Park and Burgess (1942) joined those to expound upon the social disorganization that was prevalent throughout communities (as cited in Barkan, 2009). Therefore, social factors appear to be the primary elements associated to deviant behavior in which social structure is disorganized. Garland and Sparks (2000) noted that:
The plain historical fact is that the social significance of crime and its control is so pervasive, so complex, and so contentious that no scientific discipline can ever dictate the ways in which these matters will be understood or addressed. (p.3)
Sutherland (1949) approached the explanation of crime to be either based on an individual’s history of criminality or their circumstances pertaining to the motive and opportunity to participate in deviant behavior (as cited in Birbeck & LaFree, 1993). However, the evolution of modern criminology introduced a social and political conception to the examination of how criminal behavior is formed in relation to controlling crime (Garland & Sparks, 2000).
Akers’s social learning theory integrated the psychological features associated to the learning process into the differential association perspective. This viewpoint attributes delinquent behavior to be the result of being exposed to role models that incorporate deviant behaviorisms into their values and the imitation of these behaviors is dependent upon the level of reinforcement received (Vito et al., 2007). The implications in addressing behavioral modification under the social learning theory is to restrict one’s ability to be exposed to others who practice deviancy and to address the modifications of one’s social attitudes to promote “prosocial” behaviorisms (Vito et al., 2007, p. 199).
Cloward and Ohlin (1960) and Elliott and Voss (1974) applied the strain theory to examine delinquency from an integrated perspective that focused on the motivation to obtain a conventional goal versus participation in delinquent behavior (as cited in Elliott et al., 1979). Although there are differences among the social learning theory and the general strain theory, these two theories are capable of being combined to form an integrative theory.
An Integrative Theoretical Perspective: Social Strain Theory
A form of “theory competition” is the integration of two or more theories (Liska, Krohn, & Messner, 1989) together to logically conceptualize and empirically examine the explanations of crime (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009, p. 295). There are several explanations to describe the causation of crime; criminologists that utilize the situational perspective of criminality contemplate the physical and sociological elements associated to acts of delinquency. Mischel (1973) stated that there are incidents in which one’s circumstances directly restrict behavioral selection.
There are situational variables that fuel the motivation to commit a crime and without these situational variables, motivation may weaken (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1984). Elliott et al., (1979) proposed an integrative theory to explain the etiology of deviant behavior, utilizing the social bonds and experiences to describe the process of socialization and participation with peers that are delinquent.
There are many theoretical perspectives that are utilized and applied to examine the occurrence of criminal behavior; however, each theory proffers a unique analysis of delinquency that can be related to other criminological theories to substantiate the evaluation of criminal behavior. It is realistic and appropriate to combine both the social learning theory and the general strain theory to develop an integrated theory entitled the social strain theory. The social strain theory would be based on the symbolic interactionism of crime, combining the work of Akers’s social learning theory and Agnew’s general strain theory to expound upon the sociological causes of criminal behavior. The variables of social learning theory incorporate (a) association, (b) corroboration, (c) justification and rationalization of behavior, and (d) conditioning and reformation of actions (Akers & Sellers, 2009).
Social learning theory is an integrated theory in and of itself, developed by Akers (1973; 1977; 1985; 1998) to incorporate differential association into the examination of behavioral principles to comprehensively investigate criminal behavior (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009). Cullen and Agnew (1998) are credited for applying the control theory and differential association theory to the investigation of sociological elements to explain acts of deviancy. Agnew’s general strain theory of crime and delinquency is comprised of social psychological perspectives of responding to the pressure(s) of meeting sociological expectations (Akers & Sellers, 2009). The social strain theory would apply the differential association and reinforcement of learning principles while embracing the fundamentals associated to sociological structure and strain experienced in certain populations. The combination of both perspectives presents an exceptional approach to explaining the causes of crime based on socially constructed elements of behavior that aid in the adaptation of the strain experienced.
Lemert (1951) claimed that criminals do not often perceive themselves as perpetrators or partakers in crime commission (as cited in Bernard et al., 2010). At times, criminals experience a level of neutrality associated to the rationalization of crime commission; however, once labeled a criminal, there is often a conceptualization of legitimizing delinquent behavior while fueling socialization with others that are similarly labeled (Garfinkel, 1965; Becker, 1963). The social strain theory would investigate the process of socially constructed behavior that is unconventional and yet justified or rationalized upon. This integrative approach would examine both an individualized role and group role within society to explicate social structure, competition, adaptation, and the emotional aspect of criminality.
If the majority of deviant behavior is learned, it is possible to implement proactive strategies in addressing the learning process to prevent future participation in perpetration. The social strain theory is a social theory and not a conflict theory, not concentrating on the humanistic competition associated to the political agenda of power and control. The many different criminological theories that explain the causation, control, and prevention of criminal behavior represent an instrument to comprehensively understanding the complexity of crime. Hirschi (1979) established several different strategies for integrating theories to investigative crime (as cited in Liska & Messner, 1999). The social strain theory encompasses both the social learning theory and the general strain theory based on a conceptual integration. In other words, the two theories can be conceptually integrated due to parallel tenets of social learning.
Conclusion
When examining the causes of criminal behavior, a plethora of factors must be considered to appropriately attempt to comprehend the dynamics of deviant behavior. In the examination of the micro and macro aspects of crime, Akers (1968; 1985) applied theory to conceptualize the relationship between social structure and the plausibility of participating in deviant behavior (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009). The application of criminological theory involves the construction and implementation of criminal law to the investigation of those who refuse to abide by it. Theories are utilized to describe the behavior of individuals employed within the justice system who are responsible for the development and execution of laws, and also applied to examine the functionality of the justice system.
The transformation of traditional criminology to a modern perspective incorporated a democratization of social and cultural elements in the examination of social ecology and class disparity (Garland & Sparks, 2000). The epistemological assumptions of criminology contemplate how viewing the world is theorized in relation to the occurrence of crime and the problematic notion of controlling crime.
References
Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47-87.
Agnew, R. (1999). A general strain theory of community differences in crime rates. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36(2), 123-155. Doi: 10.1177/0022427899036002001.
Agnew, R., Brezina, T., Wright, J. P., & Cullen, F.T. (2002). Strain, personality traits, and delinquency: Extending general strain theory. Criminology, 40(1), 43-72.
Akers, R.L. (1999). Criminological theories: Introduction and evaluation. (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: Roxbury Publishing Company. Retrieved from, http://books.google.com/books?id=TgX4eo04GVgC&printsec=copyright&source=gbs_pub_info_s&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Akers, R.L., & Sellers, C.S. (2009). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application. (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Barkan, S. E. (2009). Criminology: A sociological understanding. (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Becker, H.S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York, NY: Free Press of Glencoe.
Bernard, T.J., Snipes, J.B., & Gerould, A.L. (2010). Vold’s theoretical criminology. (6th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Birbeck, C., & LaFree, G. (1993). The situational analysis of crime and deviance. Annual Rev. of Sociology, 19, 113-137.
Brantingham, P.J., & Brantingham, P.L. (1984). Patterns in crime. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Broidy, L.M. (2001). A test of general strain theory. Criminology, 39(1), 9-36.
Broidy, L., & Agnew, R. (1997). Gender and crime: A general strain theory perspective. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34(3). 275-306. Doi: 10.1177/0022427897034003001
Cullen, F., & Agnew, R. (1998). Criminological theory: Past to present. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
Einstadter, W.J., & Henry, S. (2006). Criminological theory: An analysis of its underlying assumptions. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Retrieved from, http://books.google.com/books?id=r3IMdD2xZ8MC&printsec=copyright&source=gbs_pub_info_s&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Elliott, D.S., Ageton, S.S., & Canter, R.J. (1979). An integrated theoretical perspective on delinquent behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 16(3), 3-27. Doi: 10.1177/002242787901600102.
Garfinkel, H. (1965). Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies. American Journal of Sociology, 61(5), 420-424.
Garland, D., & Sparks, R. (2000). Criminology and social theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kitsuse, J.I. (1962). Societal reaction to deviant behavior: Problems of theory and method. Social Problems, 9(3), 247-256. Doi: 10.1525/sp.1962.9.3.03a00060.
Liska, A. E., & Messner, S. F. (1999). Perspectives on crime and deviance. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Meier, R.F. (1977). The new criminology: Continuity in criminological theory. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 67(4). Retrieved from, http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/jclc67&div=47&id=&page=.
Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychology Rev., 80, 252-283.
Schneider, J.W. (1985). Social problems theory: The constructionist view. Ann Rev Sociology, 11, 209-229. Doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.11.080185.001233.
Straus, R.A. (2002). Using sociology: An introduction from the applied and clinical perspectives. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Sutherland, E.H., Cressey, D.R., & Luckenbill, D.F. (1992). Principles of criminology. (11th ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Ulmer, J.T. (2000). Commitment, deviance, and social control. The Sociological Quarterly, 41(3), 315-336.
Vito, G.F., & Maahs, J.A., & Holmes, R.M. (2007). Criminology: Theory, research, and policy. (2nd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Beranda
