Integrated theories 12

Core idea

Useful parts of multiple theories can be combined to explain crime more fully.

Key points

Three main types: conceptual, propositional, and cross-level integration.

Important examples include strain-control integration, reintegrative shaming, and integrated general theory

What it explains best

How different theories may work together instead of staying separate.

Main criticism

Some theories are built on assumptions that do not fit together cleanly.

example

A person may experience strain at home or school, which pushes them toward delinquent peers, and those peers then teach or reinforce criminal behavior.

This is an example of integrated thinking because it combines ideas from more than one theory instead of saying only one cause explains the crime.

Conceptual integration

combining key ideas/concepts from different theories

Propositional integration

one theory leads into another theory.

Strain at home or school makes someone frustrated.
That strain pushes them toward delinquent peers.
Then social learning explains how those peers teach or reinforce crime.

Cross-level integration

connects big social factors with individual-level factors.

macro level = society, economy, inequality, neighbourhoods

micro level = individual choices, peer groups, emotions, self-control

Strain-control integration

This combines ideas from strain theory and control theory.

strain or pressure can push someone toward crime

weak social bonds or weak control can make crime more likely

Reintegrative shaming

society should shame the bad act

but not permanently reject the person

if the offender is brought back into the community, they are less likely to keep offending

social learning theory

Integrated general theory

broad theory that tries to combine many criminological ideas into one bigger explanation.

It looks at:

motivations for crime

constraints against crime

social factors

individual factors