This literature review traces the development of Robert K. Merton's social strain theory from its introduction in 1938 through the early twenty-first century. Beginning with Merton's foundational argument that certain social structures normalize subversive and criminal behavior, the paper examines how subsequent researchers expanded, tested, and challenged the theory across decades. Key contributions include Goode's application of role strain to societal stability, Snoek's individualized strain measures, Agnew's focus on blocked pain-avoidance, and later empirical challenges from Bernard and Burton et al. The review concludes that, despite mixed findings, the ongoing scholarly debate has refined rather than refuted the core theoretical framework.
Though crime and prisons have existed in one form or another for many millennia of human history — indeed, since at least the dawn of recorded history and probably since long before — these elements of society were not made the focus of specific study or examination until the nineteenth century. Since that time, many differing explanations have been offered for why crime exists and how prison and penal systems can best be designed to effectively dissuade criminal behaviors through punitive measures and/or the rehabilitation of criminals once they have been imprisoned. Some theorists place the blame for criminal acts solely on the individual, while others see large-scale social problems as the primary reason that certain individuals and segments of society turn to crime.
One large school of thought that places a social cause at the root of most or all criminal behavior is known as social strain theory. There are many different variations and interpretations of this theory, yet one of the earliest and most respected formulations comes from Robert K. Merton, who first put forth his theory in the 1930s. Since that time, many other theorists have contributed to the growth and adaptation of this theory in light of new evidence and convergence with other frameworks. This review analyzes research articles from throughout the twentieth century in order to outline the progress and impact of Merton's social strain theory of society and criminal behavior.
In his 1938 paper "Social Structure and Anomie," Merton lays out his theory in a clear and succinct manner: "certain phases of social structure generate the circumstances in which infringement of social codes constitutes a 'normal' response" (p. 672). In other words, certain factors and movements within a society make subversive or criminal behavior an expected and "normal" part of that society's functioning — meaning both that some sort of subversive element is all but unavoidable in any society, and that particular societal forces can amplify these subversive elements and impulses (Merton, 1938). This theory stood in marked contrast to prevailing theories of the time, which generally posited a biological force behind criminality, and thus marked a valuable new direction in social research generally and the field of criminology specifically.
By the 1960s, theories of social strain had become well established in the research community, gaining in specificity and adaptability to different societies and time periods. William J. Goode (1960) suggests in his version of the theory that strain experienced in social roles — more than anything else — actually helps keep society stable and "normal," since it is through the struggle to fulfill and maintain roles rather than through the stasis of attainment that societies progress. Clearly, role and social strain had moved beyond a mere explanation for criminal or subversive behavior and was being seen as a potential explanation for the entire fabric of human society (Goode, 1960).
Another study conducted in the same decade found that the level of job stress and role strain an individual experienced was in large part determined by the number of different role interactions and relationships they were expected to undertake as part of their daily lives (Snoek, 1966). This suggests that, rather than being a wholly normative feature, there are varying levels of role and social strain experienced based on a variety of large-scale and individual-level social factors (Snoek, 1966). This research also implies that these varying degrees of role strain can create different perceptions of situations and thus lead to different actions, which ties in quite neatly with Merton's (1938) original theory of increased social strain leading to subversive actions (Snoek, 1966).
By 1985, social strain theory had developed considerably, with the most prominent theories promoting the idea that strain was created by social barriers to goal achievement, which led to delinquency or criminality in response (Agnew, 1985). One researcher noted that for adolescents specifically, the blockage of pain-avoidance behaviors — such as being trapped in an abusive family relationship — can also contribute to delinquency and criminality (Agnew, 1985). This theory did not refute earlier or contemporary social strain theories in whole or in part, but rather enlarged and enhanced them by providing evidence of specific strains and the ways in which they contribute to subversive yet "normal" behaviors in a specific segment of a society's population.
In addition to the agreement that Merton's theory found among subsequent researchers, there have also been theorists who disagreed with social strain theories as an explanation for criminality or subversive behavior. By 1987, theories had emerged that were not wholly separate from social strain theory but proposed individual relationships — rather than aggregate relationships — with certain social elements as an explanation for turning to criminal or subversive behaviors (Bernard, 1987). Certain theorists and researchers also determined that they could demonstrate Merton's theory of social strain to be false using aggregate data, and that although individual data could not falsify these aggregate theories, it could be shown that individual relationships provided a better fit to reality than aggregate ones (Bernard, 1987).
Continuing this trend, Burton et al. (1994) examined three different competing standards of measurement applied in various iterations of social strain theory. This research supported some earlier findings — namely that perceptions of blocked opportunity and relative deprivation are highly correlated with criminal offenses in adults, while gaps in aspirations and expectations are not adequate measures within social strain frameworks of criminal behavior (Burton et al., 1994). The study also found, however, that other factors such as low self-control and social bonding problems were far more highly correlated with criminal offenses and negated any effects proposed by social strain theories (Burton et al., 1994).
A more recent study attempted to determine a link between several common features identified as causal of criminal behaviors by prominent social strain theories. It found that ethical standards were positively associated with income among self-employed individuals, but negatively associated with educational level and association membership (De Clercq & Dakhil, 2009). That is, the higher an individual's educational level and/or the more extensive their memberships in professional and societal organizations, the lower their ethical standards were observed to be (De Clercq & Dakhil, 2009). This appears to run counter to previous research supporting social strain theory, which had found that the more socially accepted and successful an individual is, the less likely they are to exhibit subversive, criminal, or unethical behavior (De Clercq & Dakhil, 2009).
On the whole, the findings of research into social strain theory throughout the twentieth century and into the twenty-first have yielded very mixed results. From the different and often directly opposing theories and conclusions that have been formulated, it might seem as though no real useful progress has been made in social or role strain theory as an explanation for criminality and subversive behavior. This is not representative of reality, however. A close examination of the various studies and their progression shows that very real advances have been made, even if the answers derived today are no more certain than they were the better part of a century ago. Social sciences are not as concrete as the hard sciences, but no scientific progression is ever truly linear.
"Analytical trajectory from Merton through recent critiques"
Theories in the social sciences rarely become as widely accepted and as thoroughly vetted as theories in the hard sciences. Social strain theory is excellent evidence of this fact: many parts of the theory have been upheld by some researchers, yet the theory as a whole has never commanded a major consensus. At the same time, the fact that this theory still exists in some form is a testament to how the social sciences work — interactions between theories and theorists lead to refinement, development, and conversation that ultimately yield deeper understandings.
You’re 72% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.