A Theory of Crime Resistance and Susceptibility*

Abstract

The "causes of crime" research has up to this point focused on those events and conditions that push or pressure individuals into crime (strains), that pull or attract individuals to crime (social learning for crime), and that restrain individuals from responding to pressures and attractions with crime (controls). Work in several areas, however, has suggested that the response to the pressures for and attractions to crime is not simply a function of controls. It is also a function of the individual's resistance or susceptibility to the events and conditions described by strain and social learning theories. Those high in resistance are less likely to experience these criminogenic events and conditions as pressures for or attractions to crime, whereas those high in susceptibility are more likely. Resistance and susceptibility are a function of factors that influence the perception and interpretation of criminogenic events and conditions, the emotional reaction to them, and the behavioral inclinations prompted by them. These factors include negativity, pleasure and sensation seeking, conventional efficacy and perceived social support, and general sensitivity to the environment. With certain notable exceptions, these factors have been neglected in mainstream crime research, but they have the potential to improve the explanation and prediction of crime substantially.Three major theoretical perspectives dominate criminology (Agnew, 2005;Hirschi, 1969;Kornhauser, 1978). 1) Strain theories focus on those strains or stressors that push or pressure individuals into crime. Strains such as economic problems and discrimination contribute to a range of negative emotions, creating pressure for corrective action-with crime being one method of coping (Agnew, 2006). 2) Social learning theories focus on those factors that pull or attract individuals to crime. Individuals view crime as an attractive option because their prior crime has been reinforced, they have been exposed to models whose crime has been reinforced, and they have been taught beliefs favorable to crime (Akers, 2009). And 3) control theories focus on those factors that restrain individuals from responding to pressures and attractions with crime. These restraints include formal and informal sanctions, bonds to conventional others, investments in conventional institutions, the belief that crime is wrong, and self-control (Agnew and Brezina, 2015;Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990;Hirschi, 1969).

The Spatial and Social Patterning of Property and Violent Crime in Toronto Neighbourhoods: A Spatial-Quantitative Approach

“…The land use pattern, represented by open areas and road density, has been found to be an important factor in youth crime [15]. Relative deprivation theory is concerned with the potential influence of neighbourhood environment on crime and the role of perceived inequality by individuals who compare themselves to the "reference group"; perceived inequitable income or share of resources, for example, as measured by the extent of income inequality, may cause stress or frustration, leading an individual to respond by engaging in criminal behaviour [18,19]. While it is a challenge to identify the proper reference group in order to determine relative inequality or deprivation an individual may feel, research has used residential neighbourhood and the larger city to explore the relationship between neighbourhood inequality and neighbourhood crime [7,20].…”

Radicalization as a Functional Aspect of Crime

“…Researchers using these approaches have elucidated their conceptualisations through the Routine Activities and Crime Potential Theories both of which place importance of places where crime can occur and interactions between potential offenders and potential victims as the common ingredients and how people make use of the spaces around them. Other criminology research focuses on the kinds of pressures that push people to commit crime, and the socialising especially of children to learn criminal behaviour or to refrain from it (Agnew, 2016).…”

“…Criticisms of these theories are that they do not explain all the variations in crime given that most people do not respond to pressures and attractions for crime even though they may have low self-esteem (Agnew, 2016). The perceived deficiencies in these theories have given rise to several lines of research, for example, resilience research which holds that factors like temperament and self-esteem influence response to pressures and attractions (Losel and Bender, 2003;Rutter, 2006).…”

“…The theory, proposed by Agnew (2016), looks at four factors it regards as playing a key role in determining resistance and susceptibility to criminogenic events and conditions: These include negative reaction to events, that is, negative interpretation of events and conditions as bad and unjust may make one angry and inclined to be aggressive or rebellious. This is influenced by factors such as anger, hostile attribution of intention on others, sensitivity to injustice, among others (Simons et al, 2011;Losel and Bender, 2003;Bondu and Elsner, 2015).…”

“…However, no one single factor alone has been empirically shown to cause people to engage in criminality (Patterson, 2013). In order to explain the phenomenon, scholars have formulated a general strain theory suggesting that crime is caused by strain or pressure on the offender (Agnew, 2016;Iratzoqui, 2015;Day et al, 2012). Earlier, Gottfredson and Hisrchi (1990), in their "A General Theory on Crime', argued that self-control is central to the causation of crime since this is learned in early parental socialization of children into self-control by punishing deviant acts which result in avoidance of deviant behaviours later in life.…”