Positivist to Strain Theory: Evolution of Crime Causation
This paper traces the evolutionary relationship among four major criminological theories: Positivist, Social Disorganization, Social Learning, and Strain Theory. Beginning with Cesare Lombroso's biological determinism, the paper shows how each subsequent theory responded to its predecessor—shifting from nature-based explanations to environmental and learned-behavior models. Strain Theory is examined as a synthesis that incorporates elements of all three earlier frameworks, emphasizing how negative emotional states and social pressures strain individuals toward criminal behavior. The paper draws on Agnew (2008) and Akers and Jennings (2009) to situate each theory within the broader nature-versus-nurture debate in criminology.
- Introduction: Theoretical Evolution in Criminology: Overview of four theories' evolutionary relationship
- Positivist Theory and Biological Determinism: Lombroso's nature-based explanation of criminal behavior
- Social Disorganization and Social Learning Theories: Environment and learned behavior as crime causes
- Strain Theory as a Synthetic Framework: Strain Theory synthesizes prior theories via negative states
- Conclusion: Strain Theory as umbrella perspective on criminal causation
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper constructs a clear intellectual lineage, showing each theory as a direct response to the one before it, which gives the argument a logical, cumulative structure.
- The volcano analogy used to explain Strain Theory is concrete and memorable, translating an abstract psychological concept into an accessible image.
- Citations are used precisely and purposefully—Agnew (2008) and Akers and Jennings (2009) are invoked at the exact points where their theoretical distinctions matter most.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative theoretical synthesis: rather than describing each theory in isolation, the author consistently frames each framework in relation to its predecessors. This technique—positioning theories as responses and refinements—is central to criminological and social science literature reviews and shows strong command of how academic paradigms develop over time.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by establishing the evolutionary relationship among the four theories, then dedicates focused paragraphs to Positivist Theory, Social Disorganization, and Social Learning Theory before building to Strain Theory as the culminating synthesis. The final paragraph reinforces the thesis by returning to the umbrella concept of negative states. The references section cites two SAGE encyclopedia entries, appropriate for an undergraduate-level theoretical overview.
Introduction: Theoretical Evolution in Criminology
The relationship among Positivist, Social Disorganization, Social Learning, and Strain theories represents one of evolutionary growth and development—a process of building, shaping, remolding, and altering the perspective of how human nature is impacted by various factors in the production of criminal behavior.
Positivist Theory and Biological Determinism
Positivist Theory was rooted in an analysis of both biological and psychological factors as they applied to criminal behavior. Its focus was on natural explanation—using experiences gathered through sense data to explain phenomena. One of the most basic and consequential concepts born of this theory was that criminals are born rather than made by their environment. In other words, crime was understood to be in the blood: offenders simply had bad natures. One of the principal Positivist theorists was Cesare Lombroso, whose work laid the foundation for biological determinism in criminology.
Social Disorganization and Social Learning Theories
In response to Positivist Theory—and out of the broader argument over nature versus nurture—came Social Disorganization Theory and Social Learning Theory. The former stipulated that location and environmental factors were the real causes of crime. For example, neighborhoods lacking social fabric, organizational principles, or informal controls would naturally produce criminal activity as a result of the disorganization inherent in their social systems.
Social Learning Theory, by contrast, held that criminal activity was not based on one's innate nature but rather on what one observed. Criminal behavior, in this view, is a learned behavior: individuals do what they see others do, and thus the cycle of crime is perpetuated as others learn to copy and so on. Both theories essentially rejected Lombroso's Positivist framework by arguing that it was nurture—or the lack thereof—that led to crime, not nature.
Conclusion
One is essentially subject to one's environment according to Strain Theory, yet one's nature is also a factor in the straining of the human will. The behavior that results can be understood as the product of a pressurized internal system that, like a volcano, builds increasing pressure from the strain of a negative state until it finally erupts in the form of criminal behavior—a kind of lashing out against the rule of law, which is not reflected in the individual's own psychological state because that state is undergoing turmoil and inner conflict.
Thus, Strain Theory incorporates aspects of each of the prior theories and views them under the umbrella of negative states, offering a fourth and more integrative perspective on the causes of criminal behavior.
References
Agnew, R. (2008). Strain Theory. In V. Parrillo (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social problems (pp. 904–906). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Akers, R., & Jennings, W. (2009). Social Learning Theory. 21st Century Criminology: A Reference Handbook. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.