ABSTRACT
Strain theory does not play a significant role in recent developmental theories of crime. Such theories are instead dominated by biological and psychological theories and, on the sociological side, by control and social learning theories (e.g., Moffitt 1993, chapter 2 in this volume; Patterson 1992; Sampson and Laub 1990, 1992, 1993, chapter 4 in this volume; Thornberry 1987; Tonry et al. 1991; Warr 1993). The neglect of strain theory by developmental theorists is understandable. Strain theory has been heavily criticized in recent years, and one of the leading criticisms contends that the classic strain theories of Merton (1938), Cohen (1955), and Cloward and Ohlin (1960) are unable to explain trends in crime over the life course (Gove 1985; Greenberg 1977; Hirschi 1969; Matza 1964). While such theories may be able to shed light on the increase in crime in early adolescence, they cannot account for the decrease in crime that begins in late adolescence. If anything, these theories would predict an increase in crime during this period since older adolescents should be more aware of their limited prospects for success (Greenberg 1977; also see Simmons and Rosenberg 1971). Paralleling the attack on strain theory by sociologists, psychologists have seriously challenged the “storm and stress” image of adolescence that once dominated the developmental literature (Lerner and Shea 1982; Petersen 1988; Simmons and Blyth 1987:3–5). This image is very compatible with strain 102theory, and its demise may also explain the neglect of strain theory by developmental criminologists.
