General Strain Theory: Bullying, Abuse, and Criminal Behavior
This paper analyzes General Strain Theory (GST) as a framework for understanding the development of criminal and delinquent behavior. Drawing on two empirical studies — Cullen et al. (2008) on school bullying and juvenile delinquency, and Watts and McNulty (2013) on childhood abuse and offending — the paper compares how each study tests the theory's "negative stimuli" component. Both articles demonstrate that life strains such as bullying and abuse generate anger and depressive symptoms that can lead individuals toward crime as a coping mechanism. The paper also considers the role of self-esteem, gender differences, and the cumulative nature of strain in shaping criminal outcomes, while noting that not all victims of negative stimuli develop delinquent behavior.
- Overview of General Strain Theory: GST's core concepts, origins, and scope
- Comparing and Contrasting the Articles: Side-by-side comparison of both study findings
- Parts of the Theory Being Tested: Which GST component each article examines
- Bullying as a Negative Stimulus: How school bullying generates strain and crime
- Childhood Abuse as a Negative Stimulus: How abuse drives delinquency through anger and escape
- Self-Esteem, Complementarity, and Implications: Shared themes and practical guidance from both studies
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper uses a clear compare-and-contrast structure to evaluate two empirical studies against the same theoretical framework, making it easy for readers to follow the analytical thread.
- It grounds its discussion in specific components of GST — particularly the "negative stimuli" strand — rather than treating the theory as a vague backdrop, which keeps the argument focused and precise.
- The paper acknowledges the limitations of both studies (e.g., the small effect size in Cullen et al. and the time-limited scope) rather than presenting findings as absolute, adding credibility to the analysis.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates theory application: taking an established criminological framework (Agnew's General Strain Theory) and systematically evaluating how two independent studies test different facets of it. By mapping each study to the same theoretical component (introduction of negative stimuli), the writer shows how a single theory can accommodate multiple forms of strain and produce converging empirical support.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with an overview of GST and its core concepts, then moves into a direct comparison of the two articles — their research questions, findings, and scope. It then drills into the specific theoretical component each study tests, applies the theory to the mechanics of bullying and abuse separately, and closes by synthesizing their complementary contributions and noting practical implications for intervention and caution in judgement.
Overview of General Strain Theory
General Strain Theory (GST) offers a unique explanation of delinquency and crime that stands in direct contrast to control and learning theories. The differentiation lies in the type of social relationship that leads to delinquency and the motivation behind it. GST focuses on the negative treatment that an individual experiences from others, and it is the only major crime theory that centers on the role of negative emotions in the etiology of offending (Warner & Fowler, 2003). The experiences of strain tend to generate negative emotions such as frustration, anger, despair, and depression (Cullen et al., 2008). In turn, these negative emotions create pressure on the individual for corrective action, with delinquency and crime serving as one of the possible responses.
GST states that strains will likely increase the chance that a person becomes involved in crime, especially strains that are high in magnitude, are seen as unjust, or are associated with low social control. Some of these strains include parental rejection, a desperate need for money, criminal victimization, and discrimination. Crime can be used as a way of reducing or escaping from strains, seeking revenge against the source of the strain, or alleviating negative emotions. GST has been applied to a wide scope of problems, including explaining race and ethnicity, age, gender, community, and societal differences in crime rates. It has also been applied to many types of crime and deviance, such as police deviance, suicide, bullying, corporate crime, eating disorders, and terrorism. While most of the evidence supports the idea that strains do increase the likelihood of crime, the predictions of GST regarding which types of people are likely to respond to strain with crime are not well supported in the literature.
GST looks at how a negative relationship affects an individual and their likelihood of moving toward crime. A negative relationship can be defined as any relationship with others that is not consistent with the individual's beliefs about how they should be treated. Strain theory by itself focused only on preventing a person from achieving a positively valued goal in society. Agnew (2002) added two further types to develop GST: the first addresses situations in which a positively valued stimulus is removed from a person, and the second addresses the presentation of a negative stimulus.
This paper analyzes two articles, both focusing on GST but differing in the negative stimuli being researched. Cullen, Unnever, Hartman, Turner, and Agnew (2008) analyze the impact of bullying, while Watts and McNulty (2013) analyze the impact of childhood abuse. Both articles examine the linkage between these negative stimuli and the development of criminal or delinquent behavior. Both sets of authors demonstrate that there is a direct link between bullying and the development of criminal behavior, and between childhood abuse and criminal behavior. The strain experienced by children or individuals results in anger, and as Agnew (2007) demonstrated, anger is one of the major factors within GST. Family-based strains have also been shown to produce criminogenic effects.
References
Agnew, R. (2002). Experienced, vicarious, and anticipated strain: An exploratory study on physical victimization and delinquency. Justice Quarterly, 19(4), 603–632.
Agnew, R. (2007). Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
Cullen, F. T., Unnever, J. D., Hartman, J. L., Turner, M. G., & Agnew, R. (2008). Gender, bullying victimization, and juvenile delinquency: A test of general strain theory. Victims and Offenders, 3(4), 346–364.
Warner, B. D., & Fowler, S. K. (2003). Strain and violence: Testing a general strain theory model of community violence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(6), 511–521.
Watts, S. J., & McNulty, T. L. (2013). Childhood abuse and criminal behavior: Testing a general strain theory model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(15), 3023–3040.
Already a member? Log in
Unlock the rest of this paper
135,000+ research papers · AI writing tools · Plagiarism & AI detection
7-Day Pass
Does not renew
Get 7-Day PassMonthly
Renews at $12.99/month until canceled
Start MonthlyAnnual
Renews at $99/year until canceled
Start Annual- Unlimited AI writing tools
- Plagiarism and AI text detection tool
Plan details
Unlimited AI writing tools are for individual, non-automated use and are subject to our Terms of Service and abuse-prevention measures.
TextChecker scans: 3 during the 7-Day Pass, or 5 per month with Monthly and Annual.
Prices exclude applicable tax.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.