A Contextual Analysis of Differential Association, Social Control, and Strain Theories of Delinquency*
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Theories of Delinquency / 753 A Contextual Analysis of Differential Association, Social Control, and Strain Theories of Delinquency* JOHN P. H OFFMANN, Brigham Young University Abstract The history of criminological thought has seen several theories that attempt to link community conditions and individual-level processes. However, a comparative analysis of contextual effects has not been undertaken. This article estimates a multilevel model that examines the effects of variables derived from three delinquency theories. The results indicate that youths residing in areas of high male joblessness who experience stressful life events or little parental supervision are especially likely to be involved in delinquent behavior. The attenuating impact of school involvement on delinquency is more pronounced in urban environments low in male joblessness. These results suggest that examining the contextual implications of delinquency theories is important, but theories need to be developed with more attention to specific contextual processes. The search for macro-micro linkages and how they affect deviant and crimi- nal behavior has a substantial and notable history (Coleman 1990; Durkheim 1951 [1897]; Stark 1987). The history of criminological thought has seen Shaw and McKay’s seminal work on how social disorganization affects behavior at the individual level, especially with reference to the qualitative life histories * Support for this research was provided by National Institute on Drug Abuse grant 11293. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2000 annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, San Francisco, Calif. I thank Bob Bursik, Frank Cullen, Bob Agnew, David Greenberg, and an anonymous Social Forces reviewer for helpful suggestions on earlier drafts. I also appreciate the assistance and advice provided by Bob Johnson, Harvey Goldstein, Jon Rasbash, Ken Rasinski, Shaun Koch, and Jing Zhou. Please address all correspondence to John P. Hoffmann, Department of Sociology, 844 SWKT, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602. E-mail: John- [email protected]. © The University of North Carolina Press Social Forces, March 2002, 81(3):753-785 754 / Social Forces 81:3, March 2003 that they collected (Bursik & Grasmick 1993; Shaw & McKay 1931, 1969); Merton’s discussions of opportunity structures and strain (Merton 1968, 1995); and Sutherland’s discourse on the links between differential association and differential social organization (Reinarman & Fagan 1988; Sutherland 1939, 1973 [1942]). Although attention to these processes suffered a period of theo- retical and empirical dormancy, the last ten to fifteen years or so has seen a resurgence of interest in how macroprocesses affect microlevel social relation- ships. At least two motivating factors underlie this resurgence. First, Shaw and McKay’s (1969) social disorganization theory has been revisited and found to have merit. A number of studies indicate that aspects of social or community disorganization, a macrolevel construct, either affect individual behavior indirectly through micro relations or condition the impact of individual-level factors on delinquent and criminal behavior (Bursik & Grasmick 1993; Elliott et al. 1996; Sampson & Groves 1989; Taylor 1997; Veysey & Messner 1999; Yang & Hoffmann 1998). A key theoretical proposition is that socially disorganized communities are less able to control the general behavior of residents, thus affecting delinquent and criminal behavior via attenuated social control processes (Kornhauser 1978; Shaw & McKay 1931). The resurgence of social disorganization theory has prompted others to describe potential macro-micro linkages that elaborate several important theories of delinquency. These include elaborations of conflict and control processes in the development of delinquent behavior (Colvin & Pauly 1983; Hagan 1989), differential association and social learning theory to account for structural influences on learning and peer affiliations (Akers 1998; Reinarman & Fagan 1988), and the variable distribution of strains across types of communities (Agnew 1999). Second, recently developed statistical models, drawn primarily from educational research, now allow precise empirical attention to how macrolevel (contextual) variables condition the impact of explanatory variables on a variety of outcomes of interest to the criminological community. Recent studies have examined whether school- and community-level factors affect the relationship between demographic, family, and peer factors and various measures of delinquent behavior, drug use, violence, victimization, and fear of crime (Elliott et al. 1996; Hoffmann 2002; Perkins & Taylor 1996; Rountree, Land & Miethe 1994; Sampson, Raudenbush & Earls 1997). For instance, research suggests that community disorganization attenuates informal social control, which is then negatively related to adolescent deviant behavior (Elliott et al. 1997). Community disorganization may also have a direct impact on individual-level deviant behavior, even net of the effects of individual-level control mechanisms (Gottfredson, McNeil & Gottfredson 1991; Simcha-Fagan & Schwartz 1986; Taylor 1997). A limitation of this research has been its conceptual focus on linking social disorganization at the contextual level and social control or bonding mechanisms Theories of Delinquency / 755 at the individual level (Bursik & Grasmick 1993; Elliott et al. 1997; Sampson, Raudenbush & Earls 1997; Yang & Hoffmann 1998). Although the links between social disorganization and individual-level bonds are appealing and theoretically elegant, recent discussions of how other delinquency theories may be elaborated to include macro-micro connections offer a promising avenue for research (cf. Agnew 1999; Akers 1998; Reinarman & Fagan 1988; Simcha- Fagan & Schwartz 1986). In this article, I draw upon three major theories of delinquent behavior — social control, strain, and differential association/social learning — to elabo- rate the community context of adolescent involvement in delinquency.1 The goal is to determine whether some of the key individual-level relationships expressed by these theories vary across U.S. communities and, if so, whether community characteristics condition these relationships. To provide motiva- tion for this goal, the following section reviews these three theories with a clear eye toward discussing how their implied relationships might be conditioned by community characteristics. This discussion is followed by an empirical analy- sis designed to test hypotheses concerning the contextual effects of delinquency theories. Macro-Micro Context of Delinquency Theories A key goal of the sociological enterprise, and the criminological initiatives that it engendered, has been to describe how group processes and environmental conditions affect individual-level behavior (Durkheim 1982 [1895]; Hechter 1987). Important criminological inquiries drawn from this interest include the following: Why do residents of certain urban regions tend to engage in more delinquent and criminal behavior than residents of other areas? (Shaw & McKay 1931, 1969; Stark 1987). What ecological characteristics affect the probability of gang formation or individual delinquent behavior? (Short 1997). What community factors affect the fear of victimization or actual victimization? (Perkins & Taylor 1996; Rountree, Land & Miethe 1994). A variety of explanations have been proposed to answer questions such as these. The following discussion addresses three of these explanations: social control (bonding) theory, strain theory, and differential association theory. Although these theories focus primarily on individual-level processes, all are amenable to contextual elaboration. SOCIAL CONTROL THEORY Although its individual-level processes are well known due to the work of Hirschi (1969), several observers argue that social control theory’s macro-micro linkages are demonstrated in early criminological work (Kornhauser 1978; 756 / Social Forces 81:3, March 2003 Sampson & Groves 1989). Community disorganization, for instance, is thought to attenuate bonding mechanisms by making supervision and interpersonal attachments more tenuous (Elliott et al. 1997; Shaw & McKay 1931; Simcha- Fagan & Schwartz 1986). One might also ask whether community disorganization weakens the ability of social bonds to circumscribe delinquent behavior: In communities characterized by residential instability and heterogeneity and a high proportion of broken and/or single parent families [i.e., community disorganization], the likelihood of effective socialization and supervision is reduced and it becomes difficult to link youths to the wider society through institutional means. (Bursik & Grasmick 1983:37) Empirical research supports the notion that the impact of social bonds varies by type of community and that disorganized communities negatively affect the ability of social bonds to reduce delinquent behavior. Attachment to parents and peers, for instance, has a differential impact on delinquent be- havior that depends on the type of community within which it occurs (Krohn, Lanza-Kaduce & Akers 1984; see, however, Reinarman & Fagan 1988). More- over, community disorganization reduces social support structures and thus attenuates effective parenting, an important source of successful socialization and conventional bonding (Peeples & Loeber 1994; Sampson & Laub 1994; Simons et al. 1997; Yang & Hoffmann 1998). In general, social bonds such as attachment and involvement