Strain theory (sociology)

Robert King Merton was an American sociologist who argued that the social structure of a society can encourage deviance to a large degree. Merton believed that society's emphasis on certain socially accepted goals put pressure on people to conform in order to achieve success.[2] His theory was developed largely due to the social and economic circumstances occurring in the United States during the early 1900s.[3] Robert Merton's Strain Theory stems from a fundamental question that he posed on why the rates of deviance were so different among different societies. Merton's theories of social structure and anomie sought to explain how a society's specific social structures can pressure certain members of society, which prompts nonconformist or deviant behavior. As opposed to the conformity of members who do not experience said pressure.[4] He thought that there could be deviance in societies where the cultural definition of success and the proper means to achieve said goals are incongruent.[4] He thought that there could be deviance when there is a difference between how society defines success versus the proper way to achieve it. He found that the United States is prime example of a society where increased levels of deviance relate to the high social value of achieving success, primarily monetary, but where there are also contradictions for the proper means of acquiring such success. The most convenient approach to achieving success, legitimate or not, becomes preferred to the normative, proper procedure of achieving socially valued goals, which demonstrates that success is viewed as more important than the, possibly deviant, means to achieve success.[5]

In addition, he saw how minority groups had more difficulty acquiring a good education or a respectable living; yet the same high standard for success is enforced on everyone regardless if they had the means to satisfy such standards. Merton notes that crime and deviance are a “normal” response in a social structure that has adopted the high value goal of monetary success, but where there is hardly any opportunity for legitimate means of attaining success. For example, a region where manual or ‘unskilled’ labor is the primary workforce tends to be low income, which can not measure up to the high profit gained from illegitimate ventures such as drug dealing, gambling, or organized crime.[6] These contradictions led him to develop strain theory because of society’s high reverence towards achieving “success.”[7] Individuals are forced to work within the system or become members of deviant subcultures in order to achieve socially prescribed goals. Merton's belief became the theory known as Strain Theory.

Merton added that strain occurs when individuals are faced with a gap between their goals (usually monetary) and their current social status. When individuals are faced with strain, Merton outlined five different ways that they respond:[1]

1. Conformity: the most common response, pursuing cultural goals through socially approved means. ("Hopeful poor")
2. Innovation: accepting society's goals but designing their own means for achieving them. Often using socially unapproved or unconventional means to obtain culturally approved goals. Example: dealing drugs or stealing to achieve financial security. ("Surviving poor")
3. Ritualism: using the same socially approved means to achieve less elusive goals (more modest and humble). ("Passive poor")
4. Retreatism: to reject both the cultural goals and the means to obtain it, then find a way to escape it. ("Retreating poor")
5. Rebellion: to reject cultural goals and the prescribed means to achieve them, then work towards replacing both of them. ("Resisting poor")

British Sociologist and Criminologist Jock Young drew on Merton's theory in his book The Exclusive Society: Social Exclusion, Crime and Difference in Late Modernity in 1999. Analysing crime from both a cultural and structural point of view, he argued in the structural sense that the dismantling of the welfare state in conjunction with the widening disparities between the rich and poor has served to further exclude disadvantaged groups. Because contemporary consumer capitalism places a greater than ever emphasis on conspicuous consumption and material success, this thus intensified feelings of deprivation experienced by the less successful.[8]

General strain theory (GST) is a sociological and criminological theory developed in 1992 by Robert Agnew. Agnew believed that Merton's theory was too vague in nature and did not account for criminal activity which did not involve financial gain. The core idea of general strain theory is that strain causes people to have negative emotional responses, negative emotions that people need to be able to cope with.[9] Though, if people do not have access to legitimate or noncriminal coping, strain may lead them to commit crime in order to cope. One of the key principles of this theory is negative emotion as the motivator for crime.[9] The theory was developed to conceptualize the full range of sources in society where strain possibly comes from, which Merton's strain theory does not. The theory also focuses on the perspective of goals for status, expectations and class rather than focusing on money (as Merton's theory does). Examples of General Strain Theory are people who use illegal drugs to make themselves feel better, or a student assaulting his peers to end the harassment they caused.[10][11][12]

GST introduces 3 main sources of strain or negative relationships such as:[13][9]

1. Loss of positive stimuli (death of family or friend)
2. Presentation of negative stimuli (physical and verbal assaults)
3. The inability to reach a desired goal.

Institutional anomie theory (IAT) is a criminological theory developed in 1994 by Steven Messner and Richard Rosenfeld. The theory proposes that an institutional arrangement with a market, where the market/economy is allowed to operate/dominate without restraints from other social intuitions like family will likely cause criminal behavior. Derived from Merton's Strain Theory, IAT expands on the macro levels of the theory. IAT's focus centers on the criminal influences of varied social institutions, rather than just the economic structure.[14][15]

Illegitimate opportunities is a sociological theory developed in 1960 by Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin. The theory states that crimes result from a high number of illegitimate opportunities and not from a lack of legitimate ones. The theory was created from Merton's strain theory to help address juvenile delinquency.[16]

The theory of "role strain", developed by sociologist William J. Goode in 1960, states that social institutions are supported and operated by role relationships. Due to these role relationships that individuals may feel "role strain", or difficulty fulfilling their sociological duties in the relationship. It is through this "role strain" that social action and social structure are maintained.[17] With these relationships, come social obligations that members of that society are required to follow, which people are usually not forced to fulfill. In order for the society to continue existing, these obligations must be fulfilled at the volition of the individuals in it, which the theory states is what most people are inclined to do.[17] Due to the fact that there is no force involved in maintaining these role relationships, there will be individuals who can not, or will not, conform to these societal expectations.

In addition, the individuals within the society are not bound to one role relationship. In fact, all individuals will be part of multiple role relationships.[17] Possession of multiple relationships can account for the conflicts of interest often faced in social settings. According to Goode, however, due to these multiple relationships, an individual will almost always have a total amount of role obligations that demand more than what the individual can give,[17] whether it is in terms of time, emotional favor, or material resources. This can give rise to "role strain", which can lead the individual to attempting to fulfill socially acceptable goals in means that may not be socially acceptable (as explained in general strain theory).

While the theory of role strain attempts to attribute the maintenance of society to role relationships, Goode also acknowledges that the theory does not account for the existence of more complex social settings, such as that of urban society. The theory of role strain does not account for several aspects of urban life, such as the fact that some individuals accept absolutely none of the society's central values, the fact that individuals vary in their emotional commitment to these societal values, how these role relationships change when individuals go through a change in social position, or how these relationships hold up during times of crisis.[17]

In the year 1992, Robert Agnew asserted that strain theory could be central in explaining crime and deviance, but that it needed revision so that it was not tied to social class or cultural variables, but re-focused on norms. To this end, Agnew proposed a general strain theory that is neither structural nor interpersonal but rather individual and emotional, paying special attention to an individual's immediate social environment. He argued that an individual's actual or anticipated failure to achieve positively valued goals, actual or anticipated removal of positively valued stimuli, and actual or anticipated presentation of negative stimuli all result in strain.

Anger and frustration confirm negative relationships. The resulting behavior patterns will often be characterized by more than their share of unilateral action because an individual will have a natural desire to avoid unpleasant rejections, and these unilateral actions (especially when antisocial) will further contribute to an individual's alienation from society. If particular rejections are generalized into feelings that the environment is unsupportive, more strongly negative emotions may motivate the individual to engage in crime. This is most likely to be true for younger individuals, and Agnew suggested that research focus on the magnitude, recency, duration, and clustering of such strain-related events to determine whether a person copes with strain in a criminal or conforming manner. Temperament, intelligence, interpersonal skills, self-efficacy, the presence of conventional social support, and the absence of association with antisocial (e.g., criminally inclined) age and status peers are chief among the factors Agnew identified as beneficial.

In recent years, Zhang and colleagues have argued that socio-psychological strain factors were more indicative than mental disorders in suicide ideation and risk.[18][19] Zhang suggests that these mental strains, manifesting as an intense internal frustration and psychological suffering, develop from competing pressures in an individual's life, and identified four sources that precede suicide in a study on suicides in rural China: 1) value strain from differential values, 2) aspirational strain from the discrepancy between reality and aspiration, 3) deprivation strain from relative deprivation, including poverty, and 4) coping strain from not being able to cope in the face of crisis. The theory's particular strength is that, unlike many other theories on suicide, and strain, it does not restrict itself to one domain of possible risk factors; such as the social, psychiatric, or psychological.

This strain theory of suicide developed from Durkheim's notion of anomie, and the work of Merton and Agnew on strain theory. Although mental illness on its own is not a definite risk factor for suicide to be considered a cause, their research suggests when it goes along with these strains, the risk is exponentially higher. On the other hand, the relationship between suicide and strain may also be moderated by social regulation, -integration, and psychological factors such as personality. Durkheim's anomie contributes to strain risk, so the strain theory on suicide agrees with the suggestion that a person well integrated into a social institution (family, religion, employment, school) may be at lower risk of suicide, even if confronted with a major strain, whereas a person without such integration might be more negatively affected.

The Four Sources of Strain for Suicide

A strain is made up of at least two pressures or variables, similar to the formation of cognitive dissonance. Zhang proposes four types of strain that precede a suicide, each deriving from a particular source. These are:

'Value strain' is the result of two social values or beliefs that conflict and compete in a person’s daily life and internalised value system. The more equally important the two conflicting values, the greater the strain. An example Zhang gives is a second-generation immigrant in the US who must abide by the ethnic rules of their family while also adapting to American culture at school and with peers. Another example can be found in developing countries where the values of traditional collectivism compete with modern individualism.

"Aspirational strain" is the result of a discrepancy between an individual’s aspirations or goals, and the reality of their daily life that prevents them from achieving their aspirations. An example would be a young adult moving to a large city, expecting to become successful and live an affluent lifestyle, only to find that the means to achieve this might not be equally available due to their social status. The misleading notion of "work hard, play hard" may also cause aspirational strain, as a person might work two jobs but still won’t be able to afford a comfortable lifestyle. The larger the discrepancy between aspiration and reality, the greater the strain.

The notion of ‘if everyone is poor no one is’ might explain why in cases where a person of low socioeconomic standing is surrounded by those of similar standing, the strain is not as great (although the stress may very well be present). This contrasts with cases where the individual sees that those around them are much better off, causing them to feel deprived and miserable, resulting in deprivation strain. This type of strain is more common in economically polarized societies where the rich and poor live geographically close to one another, although social media has also done much to create a sense of relative deprivation, especially amongst the youth.

'Coping strain' occurs when, in times of crisis, a person is not able to sufficiently cope, most commonly due to deficient or inappropriate coping methods. The crisis might be a daily occurrence or a major event, and although many might cope effectively and not experience strain, there are those who cannot manage the strain. Psychological wellbeing may come into play here, as conditions like anxiety or depression may lower (or speak towards) a person’s difficulty coping. Examples include the loss of a loved one, sudden financial loss, bullying, and being fired. Being inexperienced in dealing with crises might increase the strain, which could be linked to the rates of suicide amongst teens and young adults.