Sample Answer
A Critical Analysis of How Two Criminological Theories Explain Offending Behaviour
Criminology seeks to understand why people commit crimes and how society can respond to them effectively. Over the years, many theories have been developed to explain offending behaviour, each drawing from different perspectives such as psychology, sociology, and biology. This essay critically analyses how two major criminological theories, Strain Theory and Social Learning Theory, explain the causes of theft, a common property crime. Both theories provide distinct insights into criminal motivation, but they differ in how they view the origins of deviance and the social processes that sustain it. The discussion concludes by arguing that Social Learning Theory provides a more comprehensive and realistic explanation of theft in modern contexts.
Strain Theory and the Motivation for Theft
Strain Theory, developed by Robert K. Merton in 1938, suggests that crime results from the pressure individuals feel when they cannot achieve socially accepted goals through legitimate means. Merton argued that society promotes shared cultural values, such as material success, but access to the means of achieving them, like education and stable employment, is unequally distributed. When individuals experience this “strain,” they may resort to crime as an alternative path to achieving these goals.
In the case of theft, Strain Theory argues that individuals who feel blocked from legitimate economic success might turn to stealing as a way to cope with frustration and maintain self-worth. For example, a young person from a disadvantaged background who cannot afford new technology or fashionable clothing may feel socially excluded. In an attempt to restore status or relieve strain, they might commit theft. Merton described this reaction as “innovation”, the acceptance of societal goals but rejection of legitimate means to achieve them.
Further extensions of Strain Theory, such as Robert Agnew’s General Strain Theory (1992), broaden the concept by including emotional and social stressors beyond financial deprivation. Agnew proposed that negative emotions like anger, resentment, or humiliation can push individuals toward deviant acts like theft. This modern version helps explain impulsive or emotionally driven theft, such as shoplifting not for need but for a sense of control or revenge against perceived injustice.
However, Strain Theory faces criticism for being too focused on economic and structural inequality, overlooking other motivations such as peer influence, excitement, or learned behaviour. It assumes that all individuals who face strain are equally likely to turn to crime, yet many law-abiding citizens experience similar pressures without offending. Thus, while Strain Theory effectively explains theft in contexts of poverty or blocked opportunities, it struggles to account for crimes committed by individuals from privileged backgrounds or for non-material motives.
Social Learning Theory and the Social Process of Theft
Social Learning Theory, developed by Albert Bandura (1977) and expanded by Ronald Akers (1998), offers a more interaction-based view of crime. It suggests that criminal behaviour is learned through observation, imitation, and reinforcement within social environments. Offending occurs when individuals are exposed to and internalise pro-criminal values, particularly through peers, family, or media.
When applied to theft, Social Learning Theory proposes that individuals learn techniques, motivations, and rationalisations for stealing by observing others who commit or approve of theft. For example, a teenager growing up in a community where petty theft is normalised may come to view it as acceptable behaviour. Similarly, if friends praise or reward such behaviour, the likelihood of repetition increases. The reinforcement process, where crime brings positive outcomes like money, peer approval, or excitement, strengthens the habit.
Akers’ version of the theory adds the element of differential association, meaning that exposure to criminal behaviour outweighing exposure to law-abiding norms increases the chance of offending. This helps explain patterns of group-related theft, such as shoplifting in groups or organised property crime. Moreover, modern research shows that online environments can also reinforce deviant values, for example through viral social media challenges that promote theft or vandalism.
Unlike Strain Theory, Social Learning Theory does not rely solely on economic inequality as the root of crime. It captures the social and psychological dimensions of offending, showing how theft can be a learned behaviour influenced by relationships and reward structures. However, critics argue that it may underestimate personal responsibility and overemphasise environmental influence. It can be difficult to determine the starting point, whether social learning leads to crime or whether individuals already inclined toward crime seek similar peers.
