A Gendered Look at Latinx General Strain Theory

• DOI: 10.1177/1557085120973077
• Published date: 01 April 2021
• Date: 01 April 2021
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085120973077

Feminist Criminology

2021, Vol. 16(2) 115 –146

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1557085120973077

journals.sagepub.com/home/fcx

Article

A Gendered Look at Latinx

General Strain Theory

Deena A. Isom1, Jessica M. Grosholz2,

Serita Whiting3, and Tylor Beck4

Abstract

This study investigates gendered differences within Latinx experiences using a GST

framework. We address four hypotheses: (1) Latinos and Latinas will vary in their

degrees of risk for and resilience against criminal behavior; (2) Latinos and Latinas

will experience strains to various degrees; (3) Latinos are more likely to respond to

strain with violent and serious crime than Latinas due to the types of strains they face

and their varying degrees of risk and resilience; and (4) ethnic identity will provide

different degrees of resilience against violent and serious offending between Latinos

and Latinas. Implications are discussed.

Keywords

general strain theory, Latinxs, gender, ethnic identity, risk, resilience, offending

While Latinxs currently represent approximately 18% of the United States (US) pop-

ulation (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019), they are projected to account for nearly 30% by

2060 (Stepler & Brown, 2016). More recently, research has begun to bring Latinxs to

the forefront of criminological studies (e.g., Alvarez-Rivera et al., 2014; Isom Scott,

2018b, 2020; López & Pasko, 2017; Miller & Gibson, 2011); however, much of the

scholarship still focuses exclusively on the differences between Blacks and Whites

with very little attention on the effects for other people of Color (Schuck et al., 2004).

Of the research that has focused on Latinxs, it has primarily centered on macro-level

processes like the “Latino paradox1,” acculturation, and assimilation (e.g., Cobb

1University of South Carolina, Columbia, USA

2University of South Florida, Sarasota, USA

3Prairie View A&M University, TX, USA

4University of South Carolina, Columbia, USA

Corresponding Author:

Deena A. Isom, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, African American Studies Program,

University of South Carolina, 1305 Greene Street, Columbia, SC 29208, USA.

Email: isom@mailbox.sc.edu

973077FCXXXX10.1177/1557085120973077Feminist CriminologyIsom et al.

research-article2020

116 Feminist Criminology 16(2)

et al., 2017; Miller & Gibson, 2011; Sampson & Bean, 2006). As the Latinx popula-

tion in the US continues to grow, scholarship must begin to examine the micro-level

processes at work to understand how the lived experiences of Latinxs influence their

criminal behavior and subsequent involvement in the criminal justice system. This is

especially important given the structural, criminogenic conditions in which most

Latinxs find themselves. More specifically, on average the Latinx population in the

US is young, with low incomes and large families, and lives in underprivileged, urban

communities (Malavé & Giordani, 2015). As a result, it is important that scholars

theorize how Latinxs’ particular experiences influence their likelihood of offending.

Agnew’s (1992, 2006) general strain theory (GST) provides a framework for such

group-specific analyses, as Agnew has long argued and research consistently finds

strains operate differently—in form, reaction, and consequence—for various groups

(e.g., Agnew & Brezina, 1997; Broidy, 2001; De Coster & Zito, 2010; Hay, 2003; Jang

& Johnson, 2003; Mazerolle et al., 2003; Piquero & Sealock, 2010; Sigfusdottir et al.,

2012). This, along with the calls from progressive scholars for inclusive theories and

scholarship (e.g., Potter, 2015; Russell, 1992), inspired the articulations of gendered

(Broidy & Agnew, 1997), racialized (Kaufman et al., 2008), and ethnically-specific

(Pérez et al., 2008) versions of GST. Building on such work, Isom Scott and col-

leagues (2020) recently constructed and examined a revised version of Latinx general

strain theory (LGST). While lending partial credence to LGST, Isom Scott et al. (2020)

failed to capture the gendered variation within the Latinx2 experience. The present

work expands upon their recent analysis and applies a gendered assessment of LGST.

In particular, employing the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods

(PHDCN) data (Earls et al., 2006, 2007a), we examine the distinct experiences of and

responses to strains between Latinas and Latinos, thus bringing varied gendered reali-

ties forefront within the Latinx worldview.

General Strain Theory and the Latinx Experience

General strain theory (GST) posits that strain—the loss of something valuable, the

failure to achieve a desired goal, and/or the presence of a noxious stimuli—leads to

negative emotions like anger, depression, frustration, or anxiety. For those who lack

conventionally appropriate coping skills to handle the resulting negative emotions, an

individual may turn to criminal behavior as a means to alleviate the ensuing undesir-

able feelings (Agnew, 1992, 2006). Scholars have continuously found moderate

empirical support for GST across a variety of samples and groups lending credibility

to the theory’s generalizability (e.g., Agnew & Brezina, 1997; Broidy, 2001; Hay,

2003; Jang & Johnson, 2003; Mazerolle et al., 2003; Piquero & Sealock, 2010).

In addition to its empirical support, GST is the only leading theory in which schol-

ars have put forth gendered and race-centric articulations of its arguments (i.e., Broidy

& Agnew, 1997; Kaufman et al., 2008).3 In 2008, Pérez and colleagues developed an

ethnic-specific version of GST that argued Latinxs experience discrimination and

acculturation differently than other ethnic groups, which increases their likelihood of

criminal behavior. In particular, Latinxs find themselves in a unique disjuncture

Isom et al. 117

between American norms and their cultural heritage (Denner & Guzmán, 2006; Rios,

2011; Wilkinson, 2003). Research has found that acculturation-related strains are asso-

ciated with various adverse outcomes like depression (Cortés, 2003), psychological

distress (Gong et al., 2003), substance use (Salas-Wright et al., 2015), as well as

increased delinquency and involvement with the criminal justice system (Alvarez-

Rivera et al., 2014; Cobb et al., 2017; Isom Scott et al., 2020; Pérez et al., 2008).

Additionally, Latinxs often face significant discrimination particularly when seeking

legal, medical, and social services (e.g., Bauer et al., 2000; Kasturirangan & Williams,

2003; Rodríguez et al., 2001), with some arguing that this unfair treatment stems not

from factors such as skin color, language skills, or education, but rather from their

presumed immigrant status (Malavé & Giordani, 2015).

Research suggests that Latinx youth, in particular, experience higher levels of

depression and distress as a result of discrimination (Finch et al., 2000; Fisher et al.,

2000) and, thus, may have different pathways to criminal behavior than their adult

counterparts. Ultimately, the impact of acculturation and discrimination for Latinxs is

empirically evident; yet, we still do not have a clear understanding of how the lived

experiences of Latinxs in America affects their pathways into and potential resilience

against crime. Thus, while research supports the need for investigation into the varied

strainful experiences that theoretically disproportionately and distinctly impact

Latinxs, extant literature has failed to acknowledge a driving factor of within group

differences: gender.

Broidy and Agnew (1997) proposed women and girls experience different types of

strains (e.g., more oppressive conditions, gender discrimination, excessive demands

from family) that are experientially diverse compared to their male counterparts.

Furthermore, Broidy and Agnew (1997) argued that men and women differ in their

responses to strains. For example, women are more likely to respond to strain with a

broader range of negative emotions such as fear, guilt, shame, and self-blame, and, in

turn, cope with more inwardly self-directed harmful behaviors. Men, on the other

hand, are more likely to respond to strain and anger with crime and other outwardly

negative behaviors if they do not possess the necessary coping skills. Furthermore,

these gender differences are largely rooted in heteronormative gender socialization,

leading women and girls to be more likely passive and men and boys more aggressive.

While research has empirically supported the various aspects of these gendered

hypotheses (De Coster & Zito, 2010; Isom Scott & Mikell, 2019; Jang & Johnson,

2003; Piquero & Sealock, 2004), scholars need to further investigate the gendered

responses to strain in conjunction with other statuses and identities, particularly race

and ethnicity.

Gender and Ethnic Identity Within the Latinx Context

Of central import to understanding distinct group experiences is to understand how

one’s group identity influences their perspectives and behaviors. Ethnic identity com-

prises a sense of pride and belonging about being a part of an ethnic group, along with

providing a roadmap for traversing the bias, prejudice, and stereotypical beliefs