The Invisible Woman. Joanne Belknap
this might explain girls’ lower delinquency rates.
It is instructive that studies in the late 1960s and 1970s found that girls’ efforts to find mates were not related to their delinquency rates (Sandhu & Allen, 1969) and that the patterns of boys’ and girls’ delinquent behavior were quite similar, except that boys’ rates were higher (Naffine, 1987, p. 18). Research on gender differences in the role of youth subcultures (often measured as gangs) tends to confirm that boys’ subcultures are more prone to delinquency than girls’ subcultures (Esbensen & Huizinga, 1993; Joe & Chesney-Lind, 1995; Lerman, 1968; Morash, 1983, 1986; R. R. Morris, 1964, 1965; Rahav, 1984). Notably, research testing traditional strain theory has occurred rarely since the end of the 1990s. Overall, these research findings have been inconsistent regarding whether the strain of “blocked opportunity” is more, less, or equally related to boys’ and girls’ delinquency rates. Some studies claimed that strain similarly influenced girls’ and boys’ delinquency (Cernkovich & Giordano, 1979; Figueira-McDonough & Selo, 1980; D. A. Smith, 1979); others found it more relevant in predicting girls’ than boys’ delinquency (Datesman, Scarpitti, & Stephenson, 1975; J. O. Segrave & Hastad, 1983); and one found that strain is more influential in predicting boys’ than girls’ delinquency (R. L. Simons, Miller, & Aigner, 1980). Yet another study reported that TST variables were related in the opposite direction as expected for white females but in the expected direction for African American females (G. D. Hill & Crawford, 1990). Overall, the findings are quite mixed regarding whether strain, as it is traditionally defined (as blocked opportunities), affects boys’ and girls’ delinquency similarly or differently. Notably, gang studies in the 1980s and 1990s largely rebuff Cohen’s gendered contention, finding that girls’, like boys’, gang membership, is driven to fulfill identities in environments plagued by classism, racism, and sexism (e.g., Campbell, 1987; Joe & Chesney-Lind, 1995). With the development of general strain theory, traditional strain theory has been far less tested in recent decades.
Opportunity Theory (OT)
A. K. Cohen’s TST-based (mis)portrayal of delinquent girls was reaffirmed in Cloward and Ohlin’s (1960) book Delinquency and Opportunity, but with a different twist in their version of strain theory, which they called opportunity theory (OT). Like Cohen’s TST, Cloward and Ohlin’s OT assumed delinquent boys, but not delinquent girls, had unequal legal opportunities to attain the American dream; girls encountered only frivolous concerns, such as finding boyfriends. Cloward and Ohlin’s “twist” on TST is that in addition to unequal legal opportunities, youths (and adults) also have varied access to learn delinquent and criminal behaviors, and access to learn delinquency/criminality assists one in becoming delinquent/criminal.
Bottcher’s (1995, 2001) data on the siblings of incarcerated boys provide some support for OT, mostly concerning boys’ greater opportunities to commit crimes. The girls and boys were similarly barred by class from legal means to reach social and economic success, but girls’ freedom was limited relative to boys’ in their demands to care for younger children. Because the boys could take part in more activities, meet more people, and cover wider geographical areas, they were more likely than the girls were to report conflict, peer pressure, and delinquency at younger ages (Bottcher, 1995, pp. 53–54).2 Similar to the case with TST, little research has been conducted on OT in the current century, and when it is, it rarely addresses gender. An exception is Becker and McCorkel’s (2011) study of over 16 million crime incidents reported to the police, which found support for OT. They stress “that gender is a crucial intervening variable shaping both [OT’s] social location and social relationships…. Even within shared social locations, gender moderates access to social networks and this, in turn, influences access to licit and illicit opportunities” (p. 102).
2Bottcher’s (1995) study provides information relevant to many theories and will be further cited.
General Strain Theory (GST)
Agnew (1985, 1992) revised TST into general strain theory (GST). GST advances and expands earlier strain theories by broadening the sources and types of adaptations to strains and acknowledging that goals may vary depending on an individual’s gender, race, and class. Rather than simply focusing on structural factors limiting financial success (like TST), GST includes three psychosocial strain sources: (1) the presence of negative stimuli, (2) the loss of positive stimuli, and (3) the failure to achieve positive goals. According to GST, whether responses to strain and frustrations are law-abiding or delinquent depends on an individual youth’s personality, self-esteem, social support system, and so on (e.g., if anger is the response, the coping strategy is more likely to be delinquent) (Agnew 1992). Additionally, GST addresses the importance of allowing for varied goals due to individuals’ gender, race, and class differences (Broidy, 2001). Stated another way, GST suggests that both strains and the responses to these strains may be gendered, raced, or classed. Broidy and Agnew (1997) purported the gender gap in offending could also be due to gender differences in the types of strains and gender differences in the emotional responses to strains.
Bottcher (2001, p. 894) criticized GST for failing to consider gender as “a product of individual and interpersonal action,” and Agnew (2001) himself published concerns with the tests of GST, specifically that many key strains outlined in GST were not included in the tests and that most GST tests focused on a single, cumulative measure of strain. For example, he noted that child abuse (including sexual abuse) and criminal victimization are important to account for as stressors for delinquent behavior. Additionally, Agnew pointed out that it is necessary to look at additional characteristics of the strain: The more severe, unjust, lasting, and central to the individual’s life the strain is, the more likely it will result in anger, and thus, criminal behavior. Moreover, he recognized that abuse and criminal victimization are often perceived as unjust and serious and thus could result in stronger feelings of anger and injustice than other strains. Stated alternatively, victims of abuse may engage in delinquent or criminal behavior in efforts to compensate for the serious injustices they have experienced (Agnew, 2001, 2002).
Significantly, a 2008 review of GST (Cernkovich, Lanctôt, & Giordano, 2008) criticizes the tests of it for using almost exclusively male samples. Many recent GST studies have boy-only samples (e.g., Del Toro et al., 2019). Even when girls, women, or both are included, gender is used as a control variable rather than to understand how strains are gendered (e.g., Capowich, Mazerolle, & Piquero, 2001; C. Farrell & Zimmerman, 2018; Gallupe & Baron, 2009; Hay, 2003; Hay & Evans, 2006; Jang & Rhodes, 2012; M. C. Johnson & Menard, 2012; Langton & Piquero, 2007). In addition, abuse and trauma victimizations are far too often left out of the “strain” measures or analyses (e.g., Capowich et al., 2001; Cheung & Cheung, 2010; Dierenfeldt, Shadwick, & Kwak, 2019; D. Eitle, 2002; Hoffmann & Su, 1997). A GST study focusing on “family strain” did not include sexual abuse victimization (Hay, 2003).
Broidy’s (2001) test of GST reported that while strain causes anger in both sexes, girls were more likely to report other negative emotions (e.g., guilt, worthlessness, disappointment, depression, worry, fear, and insecurity). Broidy and Agnew (1997) found that both strain and the responses to strain explain gender differences in offending. For example, compared with boys, girls reported more restrictions on their lives and behaviors and greater family caretaking expectations; they were also more likely to report all types of abuse (emotional, physical, and sexual). While girls reported feeling more stress surrounding close relationships with friends and family, boys reported feeling more strain about external achievement such as material success. Another study found, as predicted by GST, that anger was a significant predictor of violent, property, and drug crimes, and criminal behavior was related to sexual abuse, homelessness, relative deprivation, and more deviant peers (Baron, 2004). Although this study reported that gender “was a significant predictor of crime” (Baron, 2004, p. 474), it did not explain how.
Notably, tests of GST often find many gender similarities in responses to the same strains. One study confirmed GST, finding that stressful life events increased the likelihood of delinquency, but this relationship was the same regardless of a youth’s gender, class, self-esteem, or perceived control over her or his environment (Hoffmann & Cerbone, 1999). Similarly,