SELF-COMPLEXITY AND CRIME: EXTENDING GENERAL STRAIN THEORY
The first journal article focuses on how complexity of identity affects deviant/criminal behavior in the presence of strain. We all know that the General Strain Theory has a number of factors that affect who is more likely to react to strain with crime. According to this study there is a previously neglected conditioning factor called self-complexity (SC), which is introduced from the social psychology literature. According to the literature self-complexity refers to; the number of identities people perceive as important to themselves; and the varied characteristics they attribute to these identities. Individuals who are lower in self-complexity are more likely to assault another person and drink heavily than those individuals who are higher in self-complexity, and should be included in General Strain Theory. However, according to the study self-complexity has been neglected by The General Strain Theory. According to The General Strain Theory, people are pressured into crime due to the strains or negative events or the conditions they experience (Agnew, 2006), and not self-complexity; a term that refers to a person’s perceived knowledge of herself/himself, based upon the number of distinct cognitive structures, or self-aspects, they believe themselves to possess (Dixon, T. …show more content…
M. & Baumeister, R. F. 1991). There are some key factors in the previous statement that explains why The General Strain Theory rejects the self-complexity theory, (perceived, cognitive, self-aspects, and believes). These factors fall in the Personality and Social Psychology Theories, whereas The General Strain Theory states people are pressured into crime due to the strains or negative events or conditions they experience (Agnew, 2006). The way I am understanding this study, negative events affect the self, stressful events lead to negative outcomes caused by strain, which leads to behaviors as drug and alcohol use and eventually leads to crime. Self-complexity has a unique relationship with strain and should play an integral role with General Strain Theory. (Linville, 1985) summed it up perfectly, “when faced with stressful situations, it is advantageous not to place all your eggs in the same cognitive basket.” My question to this study is “why self-complexity shouldn’t join General Strain Theory since it may buffer the effects of negative events on crime as long as self-complexity is related to coping skills?” Maybe General Strain Theory has just overlooked the key factor with self-complexity and the relationship it has between strain and crime, which shows how those lower in self-complexity affects perceptions of strain, emotional reaction to strain, as well as coping resources and outcomes beyond crime. In other words, those lower in self-complexity are more likely to commit a crime as a result of strain. Overall, I found this study did contribute to the criminological literature, especially to the fact that The General Strain Theory neglected the factor that self-complexity can influence crime through strain, but with mixed findings regarding condition factors in The General Strain Theory, example: “self-complexity did not influence the intentions to smoke marijuana which then would cause them to shoplift.” The study was unclear why self-complexity did not buffer the effect of crime caused by strain. I feel further studies should be done to show how self-complexity influences decisions to offend for a variety of crimes. ROBERT MERTON’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SOCIOLOGY OF DEVIANCE In my second journal Merton’s contributions to sociology have spanned a half a century, and have been extremely influential. Merton has several critics to his work, but few enemies, along with the many supporters elaborating and defending his contributions, a secondary literature has developed from several volumes of criticism have been written, devoted to one or more aspects of Merton’s sociology during the last twenty-five years ( see Clinard 1964; …show more content…
Merton’s explanation of deviance explains the theoretical center of his works and contributes to modern sociology. However, the intellectual and political appeal of the strain theory began to erode in the 1970’s. Critical sociologists, joined with control theorists like (Hirschi), argued Merton engaged an over socialized conception of human nature, while other critics on the left attacked reformism, and the class bias in the strain theory. Conservatives claimed that his work did not provide a convincing explanation of the lower-class
The first journal article focuses on how complexity of identity affects deviant/criminal behavior in the presence of strain. We all know that the General Strain Theory has a number of factors that affect who is more likely to react to strain with crime. According to this study there is a previously neglected conditioning factor called self-complexity (SC), which is introduced from the social psychology literature. According to the literature self-complexity refers to; the number of identities people perceive as important to themselves; and the varied characteristics they attribute to these identities. Individuals who are lower in self-complexity are more likely to assault another person and drink heavily than those individuals who are higher in self-complexity, and should be included in General Strain Theory. However, according to the study self-complexity has been neglected by The General Strain Theory. According to The General Strain Theory, people are pressured into crime due to the strains or negative events or the conditions they experience (Agnew, 2006), and not self-complexity; a term that refers to a person’s perceived knowledge of herself/himself, based upon the number of distinct cognitive structures, or self-aspects, they believe themselves to possess (Dixon, T. …show more content…
M. & Baumeister, R. F. 1991). There are some key factors in the previous statement that explains why The General Strain Theory rejects the self-complexity theory, (perceived, cognitive, self-aspects, and believes). These factors fall in the Personality and Social Psychology Theories, whereas The General Strain Theory states people are pressured into crime due to the strains or negative events or conditions they experience (Agnew, 2006). The way I am understanding this study, negative events affect the self, stressful events lead to negative outcomes caused by strain, which leads to behaviors as drug and alcohol use and eventually leads to crime. Self-complexity has a unique relationship with strain and should play an integral role with General Strain Theory. (Linville, 1985) summed it up perfectly, “when faced with stressful situations, it is advantageous not to place all your eggs in the same cognitive basket.” My question to this study is “why self-complexity shouldn’t join General Strain Theory since it may buffer the effects of negative events on crime as long as self-complexity is related to coping skills?” Maybe General Strain Theory has just overlooked the key factor with self-complexity and the relationship it has between strain and crime, which shows how those lower in self-complexity affects perceptions of strain, emotional reaction to strain, as well as coping resources and outcomes beyond crime. In other words, those lower in self-complexity are more likely to commit a crime as a result of strain. Overall, I found this study did contribute to the criminological literature, especially to the fact that The General Strain Theory neglected the factor that self-complexity can influence crime through strain, but with mixed findings regarding condition factors in The General Strain Theory, example: “self-complexity did not influence the intentions to smoke marijuana which then would cause them to shoplift.” The study was unclear why self-complexity did not buffer the effect of crime caused by strain. I feel further studies should be done to show how self-complexity influences decisions to offend for a variety of crimes. ROBERT MERTON’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SOCIOLOGY OF DEVIANCE In my second journal Merton’s contributions to sociology have spanned a half a century, and have been extremely influential. Merton has several critics to his work, but few enemies, along with the many supporters elaborating and defending his contributions, a secondary literature has developed from several volumes of criticism have been written, devoted to one or more aspects of Merton’s sociology during the last twenty-five years ( see Clinard 1964; …show more content…
Merton’s explanation of deviance explains the theoretical center of his works and contributes to modern sociology. However, the intellectual and political appeal of the strain theory began to erode in the 1970’s. Critical sociologists, joined with control theorists like (Hirschi), argued Merton engaged an over socialized conception of human nature, while other critics on the left attacked reformism, and the class bias in the strain theory. Conservatives claimed that his work did not provide a convincing explanation of the lower-class