Integrated Theories of Crime

Transcription

1 Integrated Theories of Crime MARVIN D. KROHN and JOHN M. EASSEY Historically, most criminological theories have focused on relatively specific factors or processes that are suggested to explain either criminal behavior or the distribution of crime. For example, differential association theory focused on the interaction of people with their primary groups to describe the process by which they learned definitions favorable to the violation of the law which in turn would lead to criminal behavior, while theories within the strain tradition focused on how the social structure created conditions which caused strain and a need for adaptation. Once articulated, these theories competed with other suggested explanations to determine which set of concepts and propositions could better account for crime. There were few attempts to merge or integrate the ideas contained in one theory with those in another. Although there were earlier theories that incorporated concepts from different disciplines, different levels of aggregation, and different component theories (e.g., Cloward and Ohlin s (1960) Differential Opportunity Theory), the appearance of Elliott, Ageton, and Canter s (1979) Integrated Theory served as the impetus for discussion and debate regarding the development of theories that sought to combine concepts and theories into what their authors hoped to be a more satisfactory explanatory scheme. Ten years later a compendium containing articles by some of the leading figures in the development of criminological theory was published (Messner, Krohn, & Liska, 1989). The chapters in that volume represented different positions on both how to proceed with theoretical integration and whether it is wise to do so. Many of these differences have not been resolved but their continuing ambiguity has not dampened the move to find ways to combine the useful ideas contained within different, andoftencompeting,theories.indeed,itisfair to say that most new theories of crime and criminal behavior today can be considered to be integrated theories. In this entry, we will examine the meaning of theoretical integration, the issues to be considered in attempting to combine ideas from different theories, and the different approaches to integration. We also illustrate the different approaches at integration by briefly reviewing examples of each. On the surface, the answer to the question of what is theoretical integration would seem to be rather straightforward. You have ideas from more than one theory that you combine with ideas from another to form a new theory that offers a more complete explanation of the phenomenon. Thomas Bernard (1989, p. 137) offered a definition of theoretical integration that is consistent with this basic understanding: integration is achieved on the basis of a convergence among the causal arguments in various criminology theories. Akers and Sellers (2009, p. 301) offer a similar definition stating, The goal of theory integration is to identify commonalities in two or more theories to produce a synthesis that is superior to any one theory individually. Both of the above definitions set the bar relatively low for what is to be considered theoretical integration. By contrast, Thornberry (1989, p. 52) considers theoretical integration to be the act of combining two or more sets of logically interrelated propositions into one larger set of propositions in order to provide a more comprehensive explanation of a particular phenomenon. Thornberry s definition has important implications for what should and should not be considered theoretical integration and for the consequences to the constituent theories if integration is successful. For example, by stating that sets of logically interrelated propositions form the basis of determining if the constituent theories have been successfully integrated, Thornberry s definition excludes those attempts where only a concept or even an isolated proposition from one theory is addedontothatofanothertoformanewtheory. Thornberry asserts that the set of propositions that represent the basic claims of each theory need to be incorporated to consider a theory to The Encyclopedia of Theoretical Criminology, First Edition. Edited by J. Mitchell Miller Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2014 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: / /wbetc028

2 2 INTEGRATED T HEORIES OF C RIME be truly integrated. In addition, the definition also implies that if the integration is successful the new theory will render the constituent theories that form it obsolete, because the new theory offers a more comprehensive explanation. If we accept Thornberry s definition of theoretical integration, there would be few examples of such in the explanation of crime and criminal behavior. Much of the work on combining theories has concentrated on creating potentially better explanations of crime and criminal behavior and has not been overly concerned about under which definition the new theory would be considered integrated. Rather, the theories combining elements of constituent theories are typically described under subcategories of theoretical integrations such as propositional integration, end-to-end integration, and up-and-down integration. Clearly to consider all the sub-types of combining elements of theories to be integrated theory implies the use of a more liberal definition of theoretical integration than that provided by Thornberry. These sub-types of integration will be discussed below but before doing so, the question of whether we should even be engaged in any attempt to combine ideas from theories needs to be addressed. On the surface it seems that the answer to the abovequestionshouldbeintheaffirmative.ifthe goal of theorizing about criminal behavior is to be able to explain it and if by including propositions or concepts from different theories we can better accomplish this goal, then why shouldn t we strive to integrate theories? Scholars have provided several reasons for either not integrating theories or being very cautious in the way that we do so. One argument against theoretical integration addresses the best way for the science of explaining criminal behavior to advance. Hirschi (1989) argues that science advances best when theories compete with one another. We empirically assess different theoretical explanations and those that are better supported continue to be entertained while those that prove not to be effective explanations are abandoned. While this strategy may appear to be a reasonable way for the development of theories, there are difficulties with employing it. The best way to comparatively assess explanations of criminalbehavioristoexaminewhatarereferredto as critical tests. These are instances where one theory predicts one result whereas another theory predicts a different, opposite result. Unfortunately there are few examples of such critical tests. In part because of the lack of critical tests, the comparative effectiveness of different theories is difficult to ascertain. Hence, even theories that do not fare well when examined empirically are retained. According to Bernard and Snipes (1996) this results in an abundance of theories that impedes rather than facilitates scientific progress. A second argument against theoretical integration concerns the conflicting assumptions that underlie different theories. Hirschi (1989) argues that if assumptions are conflicting then any integrated theory would necessarily have to violate the assumptions of one or the other perspective. So for example, Hirschi has argued that differential association theory and social control theories have conflicting assumptions about whether humans are naturally attracted to deviant behavior or learn to deviate. In combining propositions from these theories, as is frequently done, the assumptions of social control theory are violated. Bernard and Snipes (1996) counter by arguing that the problem lies not in combining incompatibleassumptionsbutratherinhirschi sinterpretation of what the underlying assumptions are. They claim that the assumptions underlying the theories are not incompatible and, therefore, there is the potential for integrating these theories. A third concern with integrating theories is the almost inevitable increased complexity of the resulting product. Integrated theories are designed to incorporate ideas from different theories, typically expanding both the number of concepts and the number of propositions. Those integrated theories that draw from different disciplinary approaches and address the issues at different levels of analyses add further complexity. Integrated theories may be incompatible to the oft-stated goal of parsimony in our theoretical explanations. The complexity of integrated theories may lead to additional problems encountered in attempts to combine theoretical ideasincludingtheabilitytoempiricallyexamine theimplicationsofthesetheories. Complex theoretical structures are difficult to empirically test. The research literature is replete

3 I NTEGRATED T HEORIES OF C RIME 3 with examples of research that examines partial theories because the full theory is too difficult to incorporate in an equation which can be estimated. Pearson and Weiner (1985) also point out that too often the effort to integrate is not informed by a systematic integrative framework. When such a framework is absent, the process may simply be picking concepts from different theories without making sure that they form a logically coherent whole. The result can be what Gibbons (1994, p. 187) refers to as theoretical mush. In spite of these concerns, the effort to find a way of integrating ideas from different theories to form a more complete explanation of crime has continued. These efforts take different forms and we describe those forms in the next section. Integrated theories are often classified into one of two types, propositional or conceptual. Either type can be applied to theories within the same level of aggregation (micro-micro or macromacro integration) or across different levels (macro micro integration). While less common, cross-level integration is often considered to be a necessary next step in the development of theories of crime and deviance. By bringing together micro- and macro-level theories, the resulting theory attempts to account both for the individual characteristics or processes associated with crime and deviance and for the qualities of the larger social context in which the individual is embedded. Depending on the complexity of the constituent theories, cross-level integrated theories can also enhance ecological validity by more closely approximating the social processes leading to such behavior. Further, advances in statistical methodology, such as multi-level modeling, have allowed for the specification of increasingly complex models based on cross-level integrated theories. Integration can also incorporate theories across disciplinesofstudy.likecross-levelintegration, interdisciplinary integration has also been less common. This is primarily because scholars tend to be less aware of the theories and research conducted in other disciplines compared to their own. As a result, most integration only incorporates theories from within the criminological and sociological traditions. Interdisciplinary integration is becoming more prevalent as developmental theorists attempt to incorporate ideas from biology and psychology with sociological theory in order to explain criminal behavior across the life-course. In his integrative cognitive antisocial capacity (ICAP) theory, Farrington (1992, 2005) attributes the initiation, continuation, and desistence of all types of antisocial behavior from childhood to adulthood to an underlying trait referred to as antisocial tendency which is expressed as antisocial behavior through interactions with one s social and physical environment. According to Farrington, one s antisocial tendency is not only affected by sociological factors such as parents, peers, and community influences, but also depends on one s cognitive abilities or deficiencies in several domains, including impulsivity/hyperactivity, emotionality, intelligence, and conscience. Propositional integration seeks to join theories basedonthepredictionseachconstituenttheory makes about crime and deviance, although they may have been derived through different concepts andassumptions.thistypeofintegrationcanbe further classified into one of three possible subtypesbaseduponthewayinwhichtheconstituent theoretical propositions are linked together: upand-down or deductive integration, side-by-side or parallel/horizontal integration, and end-to-end or sequential integration. Up-and-down integration, also referred to as deductive integration, could be considered the classic form of theoretical integration. There are two types of up-and-down integration. In one type, propositions that are integrated in an upand-down manner use the premise of one theory to derive the propositions of constituent theories. In particular, if theory A contains a more abstract or more general proposition from which theory Bcanbespecified,thenitispossibletointegrate theory B with theory A, resulting in a single theory. Alternatively, if both theories A and B areabletobeelaboratedusingassumptionsmore general than either theory individually, then it could be possible to synthesize the theories together in order to create a new theory C which contains parts of both constituent theories. The former approach is often referred to as theoretical reduction, while the latter is referred to as theoretical synthesis. Some scholars argue that deductiveintegrationistheonlytruetypeof theoretical integration. It is also the most difficult to do.

4 4 INTEGRATED T HEORIES OF C RIME Krohn s (1986) social network theory is an example of an attempt at up-and-down integration. The theory uses concepts and propositions from the more general social network approach to combine propositions from social control and differential association theory under one unified umbrella. Side-by-side integration, or parallel integration, is most often accomplished by partitioning the subjectmatterofinterestintodistinctcategories and using different theories to explain each. As a result, much attention is often given to the criteria used to partition the subject matter, and only then focuses on the theories which can best explain each category. For example, Terrie Moffitt (1993, 1997) classifies offenders into adolescence-limited and life-course persistent in her developmental taxonomy and develops theory to account for each. Determining the different classes into which the larger umbrella of crime and deviance should be partitioned has been the expressed goal in the development of crime typologies. Typologies are often guided by both existing theory and empirical data. The extant theory coupled with what is known about the behavior can be a fruitful starting point for the construction of side-by-side integrated theories. This method of integration can be useful as some theories may be better suited to explain specific types of crime or crime by certain types of offenders than other theories. For example, classic strain theory may be better able to explain crime committed by the poor than by the wealthy and therefore may benefit from being integrated with a theory to explain crime by the wealthy. Thus, it can be advantageous to incorporate multiple theories into a single framework in order to more effectively explain a wider variety of behavior. Depending on rigor of the definition of integration, this method may not even be considered theoretical integration at all, as the constituent theories may only be considered integrated to the extent that together they explain all or most of the cases of the more general phenomenon of crime and deviance. Further, an integrated theory using this approach can incorporate as many constituent theories as there are cases from which thesubjectmatterhasbeendivided,resulting in theories which are less parsimonious than others. Theories integrated end-to-end specify the propositions of one theory as sequentially following the propositions of another. As such, end-to-end integration implies a temporal ordering among the causal variables in which the first set of variables influences the next set, in turn leading to the predicted outcome. Logically, this means that the more distal causes of crime anddeviancearetheorizedtooccurfirstwhile the more proximal causes occur later, mediating the earlier relationship. The best example of this type of integration is Elliott et al. s (1979) integrated theory in which strain leads to weak conventional bonds to society, which, in turn, leadstoassociationswithdeviantpeergroups, and thus deviance. Similar to side-by-side integration, the extent to which theories linked end-to-end could be considered to be truly integrated is open for debate. Hirschi (1989) argues that such an approach neglects to reconcile conflicting assumptions that may exist among constituent theories. Unlike propositional integration, conceptual integration seeks to synthesize theories on the conceptual similarity between constituent theories. This is done by identifying concepts in different theories which may appear dissimilar based on the words or terminology used to articulatethem,butactuallysharethesametheoretical meaning or operationalization (Messner et al., 1989). For example, the concepts of certainty and severity of formal sanctions from deterrence theory might be included in the broader concept of differential reinforcement from social learning theory, which is concerned with both formal and informal sanctions. Akers (1999) has referred to this type of integration as conceptual absorption, where a concept of one theory is subsumed into a related, more general concept of another theory. The utility of this type of integration is open fordebate.forsome,conceptualintegrationmay be used as a means to achieve propositional integration. However, the integration of theoretical concepts is only considered to be a necessary prerequisite for up-and-down integration, as the other sub-types of propositional integration allow for integration without conceptual consensus. Further, it is possible for theories with conceptual overlap to make conflicting propositional assertionsabouttheexpectedrelationshipbetween those concepts and crime and deviance.

5 I NTEGRATED T HEORIES OF C RIME 5 Much of the recent developments in criminological theory can be characterized as attempts to incorporate the ideas from different constituent theories into an integrated theory. The purpose of such efforts is to provide a more complete and satisfactory explanation of crime or delinquent behavior. Although this would seem to be a laudable goal, scholars do not agree on the merits of theoretical integration. Some feel that it is better to have theories compete with one another. The outcome of the competition would then determine which theoretical perspective would be pursued and which would be put aside. Others are concerned with the inability of integrated theories to remain true to different and often competing assumptions of the constituent theories. In spite of these concerns, the quest for a more satisfactory explanation of criminal behavior through the development of theories integrating concepts and propositions from different theories continues. In this entry, we have briefly reviewed the different forms that theoretical integration has taken. These forms are characterized by the substance of theideascontainedinthem(e.g.,cross-leveland cross-disciplinary integration) and by the form in which those ideas are integrated (e.g., propositional integration and conceptual integration). The quest for unifying the ideas contained in theoriesofcrimeshowsnosignofabating.agnew (2011) sees the process unfolding in a gradual but inevitable way because discrete theories simply have not produced satisfactory explanations of crime. He asserts that each of these discrete theories have something to contribute and that it is incumbent on scholars to find ways to integrate these ideas. SEE ALSO:Akers, Ron L.; Theoretical Integration; Thornberry, Terence P. References Agnew, R. (2011). Toward a unified criminology. New York: New York University Press. Akers, R. L. (1999). Criminological theories: Introduction and evaluation (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Roxbury. Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2009). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bernard, T. J. (1989). A theoretical approach to integration.ins.f.messner,m.d.krohn,&a.e.liska (Eds.), Theoretical Integration in the study of deviance and crime: Problems and prospects (pp ). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Bernard, T. J., & Snipes, J. B. (1996). Theoretical integration in criminology. Crime and Justice, 20, Cloward, R., & Ohlin, L. E. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity. New York: Free Press. Elliott, D. S., Ageton, S. S., & Canter, R. J. (1979). An integrated theoretical perspective on delinquent behavior. JournalofResearchinCrimeandDelinquency, 16(1),3 27. Farrington, D. P. (1992). Explaining the beginning, progress, and ending of anti-social behavior from birth to adulthood. In J. McCord (Ed.), Facts, frameworks, and forecasts (pp ). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Farrington, D. P. (2005). The integrated cognitive antisocial potential (ICAP) theory. In D. P. Farrington (Ed.), Integrated developmental and life-course theories of offending (pp ). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Gibbons, D. C. (1994). Talking about crime and criminals: Problems and issues in theory development in criminology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hirschi, T. (1989). Exploring alternatives to integrated theory.ins.f.messner,m.d.krohn,&a.e.liska (Eds.), Theoretical integration in the study of deviance and crime: Problems and prospects (pp ). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Krohn, M. D. (1986). The web of conformity: A network approach to the explanation of delinquent behavior. Social Problems, 32, Messner,S.F.,Krohn,M.K.,&Liska,A.E.(Eds.). (1989). Theoretical integration in the study of deviance and crime: Problems and prospects. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Moffitt, T. (1993). Life-course-persistent and adolescence-limited anti-social behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, Moffitt, T. (1997). Adolescence-limited and life-coursepersistent offending: A complementary pair of developmental theories. In T. P. Thornberry (Ed.), Developmental Theories of Crime and Delinquency (pp ). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Pearson, F. S., & Weiner, N. A. (1985). Toward an integration of criminological theories. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 76, Thornberry, T. P. (1989). Reflections on the advantages and disadvantages of theoretical integration. In S. F. Messner, M. D. Krohn, & A. E. Liska (Eds.), Theoretical integration in the study of deviance and crime: Problems and prospects (pp ). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

6 6 INTEGRATED T HEORIES OF C RIME Further Readings Cao, L. (2004). Major criminological theories: Concepts and measurement. Belmont,CA:Wadsworth/ Thomson. Elliott, D. S. (1985). The assumption that theories can be combined with increased explanatory power. In R. F. Meier (Ed.), Theoretical methods in criminology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Liska, A. E., Krohn, M. D., & Messner, S. F. (1989). Strategies and requisites for theoretical integration in the study of crime and deviance. In S. F. Messner, M. D. Krohn, & A. E. Liska (Eds.), Theoretical integration in the study of deviance and crime: Problems and prospects (pp.1 19).Albany,NY:SUNYPress. Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation.newyork:harcourt, Brace, and World. Sutherland, E. H. (1939). Principles of criminology (3rd ed.).philadelphia:j.b.lippincott.