A THEORY OF CRIME RESISTANCE AND SUSCEPTIBILITY*

• Published date: 01 May 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12104
• Date: 01 May 2016
• Author: ROBERT AGNEW

THE 2015 SUTHERLAND ADDRESS

A THEORY OF CRIME RESISTANCE AND

SUSCEPTIBILITY∗

ROBERT AGNEW

Department of Sociology, Emory University

KEYWORDS: resistance, susceptibility, resilience, causes, traits, crime theory

The “causes of crime” research has up to this point focused on those events and

conditions that push or pressure individuals into crime (strains), that pull or attract

individuals to crime (social learning for crime), and that restrain individuals from re-

sponding to pressures and attractions with crime (controls). Work in several areas,

however, has suggested that the response to the pressures for and attractions to crime is

not simply a function of controls. It is also a function of the individual’s resistance or

susceptibility to the events and conditions described by strain and social learning theo-

ries. Those high in resistance are less likely to experience these criminogenic events and

conditions as pressures for or attractions to crime, whereas those high in susceptibility

are more likely. Resistance and susceptibility are a function of factors that influence

the perception and interpretation of criminogenic events and conditions, the emotional

reaction to them, and the behavioral inclinations prompted by them. These factors in-

clude negativity, pleasure and sensation seeking, conventional efficacy and perceived

social support, and general sensitivity to the environment. With certain notable excep-

tions, these factors have been neglected in mainstream crime research, but they have

the potential to improve the explanation and prediction of crime substantially.

Three major theoretical perspectives dominate criminology (Agnew, 2005; Hirschi,

1969; Kornhauser, 1978). 1) Strain theories focus on those strains or stressors that push

or pressure individuals into crime. Strains such as economic problems and discrimination

contribute to a range of negative emotions, creating pressure for corrective action—with

crime being one method of coping (Agnew, 2006). 2) Social learning theories focus on

those factors that pull or attract individuals to crime. Individuals view crime as an at-

tractive option because their prior crime has been reinforced, they have been exposed

to models whose crime has been reinforced, and they have been taught beliefs favorable

to crime (Akers, 2009). And 3) control theories focus on those factors that restrain indi-

viduals from responding to pressures and attractions with crime. These restraints include

formal and informal sanctions, bonds to conventional others, investments in conventional

institutions, the belief that crime is wrong, and self-control (Agnew and Brezina, 2015;

Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990; Hirschi, 1969).

∗Direct correspondence to Robert Agnew, Department of Sociology, Emory University, 1555

Dickey Drive, Tarbutton Hall, Atlanta, GA 30322 (e-mail: bagnew@emory.edu).

C2016 American Society of Criminology doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12104

CRIMINOLOGY Volume 54 Number 2 181–211 2016 181

182 AGNEW

Figure 1. Master Paradigm for the Causes of Crime Research (Direct and

Interactive Effects Shown)

Strains

(pressures

for crime )

Controls Crime

(restraints

against crime)

Social Learning

for Crime

(attractions to

crime)

There are, to be sure, many crime theories besides strain, social learning, and control

theories (hereafter referred to as “the big three”). But most other theories are extensions

of the big three. Certain extensions focus on particular types of strain, social learning, or

control. Deterrence theory, for example, focuses on that type of control involving for-

mal sanctions by the criminal justice system. Other extensions focus on particular levels

of analysis. Social disorganization theory, for example, focuses on controls at the commu-

nity level. Still other extensions apply the big three to particular groups or dependent vari-

ables. Life-course theories, for example, use the big three to explain offending in different

age groups and patterns of offending over the life course. Many extensions describe how

exogenous variables, including biological factors, sociodemographic variables, and larger

social and cultural forces, impact the big three. Certain feminist theories, for example,

describe the impact of gender on strains such as discrimination and physical and sexual

abuse. And several extensions attempt to integrate the big three (Agnew, 2005; Elliott,

Huizinga, and Ageton, 1985).

The dominance of the big three has been readily apparent in the research on the causes

of crime. Quantitative studies have routinely included control variables, such as parental

supervision, bonds to parents and school, beliefs regarding crime, and self-control

(Agnew and Brezina, 2015; Kurbin, Stucky, and Krohn, 2009). Such studies also have reg-

ularly included social learning variables, particularly association with delinquent peers

and beliefs favorable to crime (Pratt et al., 2009). And these studies often have in-

cluded strain variables, such as harsh parental discipline and measures of economic strain

(Agnew, 2006). Likewise, the qualitative research has drawn heavily on the big three.

Several major qualitative studies, for example, have been explicitly or implicitly based

on strain theory (e.g., Bourgois, 2003; MacLeod, 2009). Both the quantitative and the

qualitative research have found that the pressures, attractions, and restraints described

by the big three theories play a major role in the explanation of crime. In fact, a good

case can be made that the big three constitute the master paradigm guiding the causes of

crime research. As illustrated in figure 1, crime is most likely when the pressures for and

attractions to crime are high, and when the restraints against crime are low.

But despite the dominance of the big three, quantitative studies have left most of

the variation in crime unexplained (Rutter, 2006; Weisburd and Piquero, 2008). Many