Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Agnew, Robert: Integrated Theory

The beginning of the 21th century was an exciting period in which to study the causes of crime. Violence in the United States, particularly among juveniles, had dropped precipitously from its levels in the early 1990s and criminologists vigorously sought an explanation. Data with which to test classic theories such as social disorganization theory had recently become available for the first time and were generating empirical support for ideas that had not previously been tested. Recent revisions of learning theory and control theory had sparked heated debate about both the causes of crime and the most effective methods with which to identify those causes empirically. Strain theory had begun a major resurgence in the literature and was generating renewed research in its own right.

However, while these and other such developments generated new interest in the causes of crime, it was becoming increasingly difficult for practitioners to keep up with the latest literature, for academics to summarize it in a coherent way, and for students to leave criminology courses with a straightforward answer to a seemingly simple question: Why do criminals offend? Robert Agnew's general theory of crime represents a leading effort to integrate prior theory and research for the purpose of answering this question in a manner that is relatively succinct but simultaneously complete.

The Goals of Agnew's General Theory

Although it may seem counterintuitive, different criminological theories sometimes attempt to explain different phenomena. This occurs for two reasons. First, different theories define crime in different ways. For example, although Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi refer to their influential control theory as a “general theory of crime,” they seek to explain any behavior that serves to satiate an individual's short-term self-interest at the expense of long-term well-being. While such behaviors certainly include acts of force or fraud for which there exist codified legal sanctions, they also include legal behaviors, like promiscuous sex or smoking, that are “analogous” to crime insofar as they satiate the perpetrator's immediate desires at the expense of long-term well-being. In contrast to Goffredson and Hirschi's theory, Agnew's (2005, p. 12) integrated theory is designed specifically to explain “behaviors that are generally condemned and that carry a significant risk of sanction by the state if detected” (emphasis in the original).

Beyond their sometimes different definitions of crime, there exists a second reason that different criminological theories attempt to answer somewhat different questions: Different crime theories have somewhat different aims. Some aim to explain why crime exists at all, some why certain individuals are more criminal, some why certain groups (e.g., adolescents, males, ethnic minorities) are more criminal, some why certain places (e.g., neighborhoods, cities, nations) have higher crime rates, and some a combination of all or some of the above aims. While Agnew's integrated theory is relevant to each of these, its primary aim is to explain why some individuals are more criminal than others.

Motivations for and Constraints Against Crime

At its core, Agnew's integrated theory argues that some individuals engage in more crime than others because they have higher motivations for crime and experience weaker constraints against crime. While this may seem like a self-evident observation to some, it actually provides an important distinction between Agnew's theory and certain other theories of crime.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading