Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Subjective Strains, Conditioning Factors, and Juvenile Delinquency: General Strain Theory in Taiwan

  • Published:
Asian Journal of Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Agnew’s [Agnew, R. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(4), 319–361, 2001, 2006a, 2006b] general strain theory (GST) argues that subjective strain and objective strain should be distinguished from each other, and that subjective strain should be related more strongly to delinquency. In addition, GST suggests that the strain–delinquency relationship is conditioned by certain conditioning factors, and that research should treat these conditioning factors as a whole, i.e., the individual’s “overall” standing regarding these conditional factors. The present study uses a random sample of Taiwanese adolescents (13–17 years old) to study these two issues. The results suggest that strain as measured in this study is related positively to delinquency; however, subjective strain does not differ from objective strain in predicting delinquency. Additionally, the “overall standing” conditioning factors interact differently with subjective strain and objective strain but in the expected direction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The “emic” and “etic” distinction is that the former is more concerned with the study of a phenomenon from within a particular culture (“idiographic” style). The latter tries to apply a general theoretical model to all different cultures, finding universal behavior rules (“nomothetic” style; Hofstede 2001).

  2. The overall standing with regards to conditioning factors essentially refers to the total risk of one’s criminal coping. Agnew (2006a, p. 104) argued that “Whether a given factor increases the likelihood of criminal coping likely depends on the level of other factors.” Consequently, researchers may need to consider conditioning factors as a whole rather than individual factors standing alone to affect the strain–delinquency relationship.

  3. The missing data are not a serious problem in the present data. Only 18 (1%) and 12 (1%) juveniles did not report their gender and age, respectively. The family income data set, however, has about 167 (14.5%) missing subjects. After conducting a series of comparisons between students who report and who do not report their family income, there is no major difference between these two groups. The only difference is that the missing group experiences a lower level of family strain (t = 4.24, P < .01). Besides these mentioned missing data, 12 subjects were deleted from the final sample because these 12 subjects did not report all items that were used to create subsequent scales.

  4. As one would expect, the total delinquent score is skewed (skewness = 2.02, kurtosis = 5.52). Natural log transformation is employed in order to normalize this scale. After natural log transformation, this scale is closer to a normal distribution (skewness = 0.66, kurtosis = −0.69).

  5. Although the reliability for this scale is relatively low, this is expected because life events often reflect independent incidents (Hoffmann and Miller 1998, Mazerolle and Maahs 2000). Moreover, the alpha level for the present study is very similar to previous studies. For example, Drapela’s (2006) alpha level for her life event scale was 0.55, and it was 0.5 in Mazerolle and Maahs’ study (2000).

  6. The reason to dichotomize each multiplicative score is that the effect of the middle groups (scores 1 and 2) on delinquency are vague at the present time. Furthermore, this method is similar to that of a previous study (Froggio and Agnew 2007). In order to support the decision to dichotomize the variable, the author conducted a series of F tests to determine if there is indeed a difference between each group on delinquency. In a few cases, the groups differed from each other. In most comparisons, only the unstrained group (score 0) differed significantly from all other groups.

  7. One might argue that the non-supportive result is due to different measurement methods. This argument is partially ruled out because the results from the same regression model, but with different measures of subjective strain (count * negativity), are very similar (results can be acquired from the author upon request). The only difference is that the R 2 (0.299) is smaller in the model where subjective strain is measured in a count * negativity manner.

  8. The purpose in the present study is to test whether Agnew’s argument (2006a) that the conditioning effects should be tested as the “total risk” approach. Hence, the individual conditioning effect is not presented in this study. However, a series of regressions are conducted in order to test whether the individual conditioning variable * strain has significant effects on delinquency. The results are generally supported for the “overall standing” assertion, although some interaction terms are significant. For example, subjective mean parents * low self-control (β = 0.056) is significant (results can be acquired upon request).

References

  • Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agnew, R. (2001). Building on the foundation of general strain theory: specifying the types of strain most likely to lead to crime and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(4), 319–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agnew, R. (2002). Experienced, vicarious, and anticipated strain: an exploratory study on physical victimization and delinquency. Justice Quarterly, 19(4), 603–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agnew, R. A. (2006a). Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory. LA: Roxbury

    Google Scholar 

  • Agnew, R. (2006b). General strain theory: Current status and direction. In F. T. Cullen, J. P. Wright, & K. R. Blevins (Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory. Advances in criminological theory (Vol. 15, pp. 101–123). New Brunswick: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agnew, R., & White, H. R. (1992). An empirical test of general strain theory. Criminology, 30(4), 475–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

  • Aseltine, R. H., Jr., Gore, S. L., & Gordon, J. (2000). Life stress, anger, anxiety, and delinquency: an empirical test of general strain theory. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41, 256–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bao, W.-N., Haas, A., & Pi, Y. (2007). Life strain, coping, and delinquency in the People’s Republic of China: an empirical test of general strain theory from a matching perspective in social support. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51(1), 9–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, S. W. (2004). General strain, street youth and crime: a test of Agnew’s revised theory. Criminology, 42(2), 457–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, S. W. (2009). Stress youths’ violent responses to violent personal, vicarious, and anticipated strain. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 442–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botchkovar, E. V., Tittle, C. R., & Antonaccio, O. (2009). General strain theory: additional evidence using cross-cultural data. Criminology, 47, 131–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broidy, L. M. (2001). A test of general strain theory. Criminology, 39, 9–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capowich, G. E., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (2001). General strain theory, situational anger, and social networks: an assessment of conditioning influences. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 445–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chun, C-A, Moos, R. H., & Cronkite, R. C. (2006). Culture: A fundamental context for the stress and coping paradigm. In P. T. P. Wang & L. C. J. Wong (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 29–53). New York: Springer.

  • Coleman, J. C., & Hendry, L. B. (1990). The nature of adolescence (1st ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colten, M. E., & Gore, S. (1991). Adolescent stress: Causes and consequences. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Compas, B. E., & Wagner, B. M. (1991). Psychosocial stress during adolescence: Intrapersonal and interpersonal processes. In M. E. Colten & S. Gore (Eds.), Adolescent stress: Causes and consequences (pp. 67–92). New York: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drapela, L. A. (2006). The effect of negative emotion on licit and illicit drug use among high school dropouts: an empirical test of general strain theory. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35(5), 755–770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Froggio, G., & Agnew, R. (2007). The relationship between crime and “objective” versus “subjective” strains. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 81–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hay, C. (2003). Family strain, gender, and delinquency. Sociological Perspectives, 46, 107–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, J. P., & Cerbone, F. G. (1999). Stressful life events and delinquency escalation in early adolescence. Criminology, 37, 343–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, J. P., & Ireland, T. O. (2004). Strain and opportunity structures. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 20(3), 263–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, J. P., & Miller, A. S. (1998). A latent variable analysis of general strain theory. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 14(1), 83–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, J. P., & Su, S. S. (1997). The conditional effects of stress on delinquency and drug use: a strain theory assessment of sex differences. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 46–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, J. P., & Su, S. S. (1998). Stressful life events and adolescent substance sue and depression: conditional and gender differentiated effects. Substance Use & Misuse, 33(11), 2219–2262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, J. P., Cerbone, F. G., & Su, S. S. (2000). A growth curve analysis of stress and adolescent drug use. Substance Use & Misuse, 35, 687–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, D.-H. (2003). Characteristics and problems for the development of adolescents in Taiwan. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), International perspectives on adolescence (pp. 303–318). Greenwich: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S.-C., & Yoon, G. (1994). Introduction. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism; theory, method, and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, S. (2001). A focus on familial strain: antisocial behavior and delinquency in Filipino society. Sociological Inquiry, 71(3), 265–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazerolle, P., & Maahs, J. (2000). General strain and delinquency: an alternative examination of conditioning influences. Justice Quarterly, 17, 753–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1997). Violent responses to strain: an examination of conditioning influences. Violence and Victim, 12, 323–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1998). Linking exposure to strain with anger: an investigation of deviant adoptions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 26, 195–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazerolle, P., Burton, V. S., Cullen, F. T., David Evans, T., & Payne, G. L. (2000). Strain, anger, and delinquent adoptions: specifying general strain theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 17, 753–778.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: a developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon, B., & Morash, M. (2004). Adaptation of theory for alternative cultural contexts: Agnew’s general strain theory in South Korea. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 28(2), 77–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morash, M., & Moon, B. (2007). Gender differences in the effects of strain on the delinquency of South Korean youth. Youth & Society, 38, 300–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon, B., Blurton, D., & McCluskey, J. D. (2008). General strain theory and delinquency: focusing on the influences of key strain characteristics on delinquency. Crime & Delinquency, 54, 582–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon, B., Hays, K., & Blurton, D. (2009). General strain theory, key strains, and deviance. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 98–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, J. I., Spector, P. E., & Copper, C. L. (2005). Frequently ignored methodological issues in cross-cultural stress research. In P. T. P. Wang & L. C. J. Wong (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 29–53). New York: Springer.

  • Sigfusdottir, I.-D., Farkas, G., & Silver, E. (2004). The role of depressed mood and anger in the relationship between family conflict and delinquent behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 509–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, K.-S. (1986). Chinese personality and its change. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 107–170). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Data analyzed in this article were collected by the research project “Factors Related to Delinquency: Testing General Strain Theory” sponsored by National Science Council, Taiwan (Project No. NSC89-2414-H-006-002-SSS). This research project was carried out by National Cheng Kung University Institute of Education, and directed by Dr. Tung, Yuk-Yunk. The Center for Survey Research of Academia Sinica is responsible for the data distribution. The authors appreciate the assistance in providing data by the aforementioned institutes and individuals. The views expressed herein are the authors’ own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminology, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, Tampa, FL, 33620, USA

    Wen-Hsu Lin & Thomas Mieczkowski

Authors
  1. Wen-Hsu Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Mieczkowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wen-Hsu Lin.

Appendices

Appendix A

Delinquent Behavior

During the past 12 month, have you ever...

  1. 1.

    Skipped school?

  2. 2.

    Violated school rules?

  3. 3.

    Viewed/watched pornography?

  4. 4.

    Entered into adults-only milieu?

  5. 5.

    Gambled?

  6. 6.

    Smoked cigarettes?

  7. 7.

    Vandalized school properties?

  8. 8.

    Gotten into a fight?

  9. 9.

    Engaged in joyride?

  10. 10.

    Used alcoholic beverage?

  11. 11.

    Stolen cars/motorcycles?

  12. 12.

    Carried a weapon?

  13. 13.

    Had sexual intercourse with opposite sex?

  14. 14.

    Joined a gang?

  15. 15.

    Blackmailed others?

  16. 16.

    Used glue, amphetamine, or other narcotics?

  17. 17.

    Stolen something worth $100 N.T. (New Taiwan) dollars or more?

  18. 18.

    Vandalized cars/motorcycles?

  19. 19.

    Response categories: 0 = no; 1=yes

Negative Life Event

Which of the following things happened to you in the past 12 months?

  1. 1.

    Broke up with boy/girl friend.

  2. 2.

    Death of a close friend.

  3. 3.

    Lost a friendship.

  4. 4.

    Got a serious accident or illness.

  5. 5.

    Parents divorced or separated.

  6. 6.

    Parents lived with new partners.

  7. 7.

    Death of a parent.

  8. 8.

    Death of a sibling.

  9. 9.

    Family member(s) got serious illness or hospitalized for a long time.

  10. 10.

    Parent lost job.

  11. 11.

    Family faced finical difficulty or got into debt.

  12. 12.

    Did not have enough allowance.

Response categories: 0=no; 1=yes

Self-Esteem

How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

  1. 1.

    I feel worthwhile comparing to my age-mates.

  2. 2.

    I feel I have good characters.

  3. 3.

    I can do things as good as others do.

  4. 4.

    I possess positive attitude about myself.

  5. 5.

    I am satisfied with myself.

Response categories: 1=strongly agree; 2=agree; 3=disagree; 4=strongly disagree

Moral Belief

How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

  1. 1.

    In order to win friends’ respect, you need to deal with things violently.

  2. 2.

    In order to gain other students’ attentions, sometimes you need to violate school rules.

  3. 3.

    In order to gain favors from parents, sometimes you need to do bad things with them.

  4. 4.

    In order to gain parental attentions, sometimes you need to violate rules.

  5. 5.

    In order to avoid punishment, sometimes you need to lie to your teachers.

  6. 6.

    In order to gain parents’ trust, sometimes you need to lie to them.

  7. 7.

    In order to maintain friendship, you need to break parents’ rules.

Response categories: 1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=agree; 4=strongly agree (reveres coded)

Low Self-Control

How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

  1. 1.

    I rarely have long-term plan for my future.

  2. 2.

    When I face difficulties, I give up what I do easily.

  3. 3.

    No patient describes me.

  4. 4.

    It is hard to concentrate on finishing one thing.

  5. 5.

    For me, it is not worth to spend a lot of time to finish one thing.

  6. 6.

    If someone insults me, I will attack he/she back.

  7. 7.

    I act on the spur of the moment.

  8. 8.

    I easily lose my temper.

Response categories: 1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=agree; 4=strongly agree (reveres coded)

Delinquent Peers

During the past 12 months, how many of your friends have:

  1. 1.

    Skipped school?

  2. 2.

    Violated school rules?

  3. 3.

    Run away from home and slept outside?

  4. 4.

    Viewed/watched pornography?

  5. 5.

    Entered into adult-only milieu?

  6. 6.

    Engaged in joyride?

  7. 7.

    Picked up by police?

Response categories: 1=none of them; 2=1of them; 3=2 of them; 4=3–4 of them; 5= 5 or more of them

Appendix B

Table 5 Explanatory factor analysis (principle axis with varimax rotation)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lin, WH., Mieczkowski, T. Subjective Strains, Conditioning Factors, and Juvenile Delinquency: General Strain Theory in Taiwan. Asian Criminology 6, 69–87 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-009-9082-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-009-9082-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation