The relationship between crime and “objective” versus “subjective” strains
✍ Scribed by Giacinto Froggio; Robert Agnew
- Publisher
- Elsevier Science
- Year
- 2007
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 141 KB
- Volume
- 35
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0047-2352
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
Agnew's (2001
Agnew's ( , 2006) )
general strain theory makes a distinction between "objective" strains, which refer to events and conditions which are disliked by most people in a given group, and "subjective" strains, which refer to events and conditions which are disliked by the people who have experienced them. Agnew argues that there is only partial overlap between objective and subjective strains, since many people do not subjectively evaluate the objective strains they experience in a negative manner. Further, Agnew argues that subjective strains should be more strongly associated with crime, since they are more likely to generate the negative emotions that lead to crime. This article tests Agnew's arguments with data from a sample of Italian youth. The results provide some support for Agnew, suggesting that many people do not evaluate the objective strains they experience in a negative manner and that subjective strains are more strongly associated with crime than are objective strains. These findings have important implications for the research on general strain theory.
📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES
The purpose of this study was to correlate subjective sleep characteristics based on questionnaire response, and objective sleep EEG features based on polysomnography, in 52 patients with major depressive disorders (MDD) and 49 healthy controls. With the exception of the number of awakenings, subjec
## Abstract Multi‐level learning approaches suggest that individuals, groups and organizations act both independently and interact dynamically to contribute to organizational performance. We directly examined this proposition in an Australian sample using a longitudinal design that employed subject
Most research on job stress has viewed the process as re¯ecting an individual's response to the objective work environment. Concerned about biases and method variance, the ®eld has made increased use of non-incumbent `objective' measures. In the present Point/Counterpoint exchange, Pamela Perrewe a