Abstract
Purpose: To critically evaluate the prevalent pursuit of a single, all-encompassing general theory of crime and deviance. The study specifically argues that various forms of juvenile delinquency are likely driven by distinct theoretical mechanisms rather than a uniform set of causes. This challenges the conventional wisdom that a single theory can explain all deviant behaviors.
Approach: The research integrates two prominent, yet often contrasted, criminological theories—Social Bonding Theory and Social Learning Theory—to precisely specify the causal mechanisms hypothesized to drive five distinct forms of juvenile delinquency. This allows for a comparative analysis of their explanatory power across different behaviors.
Key finding: The study concludes that different theoretical frameworks tend to offer better explanations for different forms of deviance, rather than one theory being universally superior. Overall, social learning factors consistently demonstrate stronger explanatory power across a wider range of multiple delinquent outcomes compared to social bonding factors within the studied population.
Implications: The findings advocate for a paradigm shift in criminology, moving beyond the pursuit of a singular general theory of crime. Instead, researchers should focus on developing and testing theory-by-behavior explanations, specifying which theories are most applicable to particular types of deviant acts. Furthermore, it emphasizes the importance of considering cross-form applicability and the influence of cultural contexts on explaining delinquency.
Theoretical framing: critique of a general theory of crime
Many criminologists traditionally favor the development and application of a general theory of crime, which posits that the same underlying factors are responsible for explaining all forms of deviance. This widely held assumption is increasingly viewed as problematic and potentially misleading because logically, distinct forms of deviance (e.g., theft vs. substance abuse) may very well originate from or be sustained by different sets of risk factors and social processes.
Core critiques cited: This argument is supported by influential criticisms from scholars such as Cullen (2011), Nieuwbeerta et al. (2011), Osgood & Schreck (2007), and Piquero (2000), who highlight empirical inconsistencies and theoretical limitations of a universally applicable theory.
Recommendation: Rather than striving for an overly broad general theory, the aforementioned scholars and the current study recommend a more focused approach: concentrating on theory-by-type explanations. This involves identifying specific theoretical frameworks that best explain particular forms of deviance and considering the unique characteristics of different types of offenders (Nieuwbeerta et al. 2011; Osgood & Schreck 2007; Piquero 2000).
Theoretical background: Social Bonding Theory vs. Social Learning Theory
Social Bonding Theory (Hirschi, 1969)
Core idea: Hirschi's theory proposes that crime and deviance occur primarily when an individual's social bonds to society are weakened or entirely broken. Conversely, conformity and prosocial behavior are maintained when these social bonds are strong and intact.
Four elements of the social bond: These elements collectively form the individual's stake in conformity:
Commitment: Refers to an individual's investment in conventional lines of action. This includes the value placed on opportunities and achievements that could be jeopardized by engaging in deviance, such as educational pursuits, career aspirations, and reputation within the community.
Involvement: Pertains to the amount of time and energy an individual spends participating in conventional, legitimate activities. Examples include extensive involvement in studying, regular family activities, participating in organized recreation, and after-school programs. High involvement leaves less time and opportunity for delinquent acts.
Beliefs: Represents the extent to which an individual adheres to the moral validity of society's laws, norms, and conventional value systems. This includes respecting authority, recognizing the legitimacy of legal institutions, and internalizing the moral imperative to abide by societal rules.
Attachment: Describes the emotional ties and closeness an individual feels towards significant others who are conventional, such as parents, teachers, and prosocial peers. Strong attachments imply a sensitivity to the opinions and expectations of these important figures, leading to a desire to avoid disappointing them.
Inter-correlation: Hirschi posited that these four elements are interconnected and mutually reinforcing. Positive changes or strengths in one element tend to positively affect the others, leading to a stronger overall bond, while weakens in one can cascade and weaken others, increasing the likelihood of deviance.
Key nuance: A critical theoretical nuance within Hirschi's framework is that attachment is hypothesized to constrain deviance even if the attached others (e.g., highly deviant peers) are themselves involved in delinquent behaviors. The idea is that the emotional bond itself generates a sense of obligation to the relationship, which can override direct influence from the peer's deviance. However, empirical findings often show that attachment to delinquent peers, in fact, tends to be a significant predictor of delinquency, frequently emerging as the most significant predictor among bonding elements, while involvement has shown mixed empirical support.
Critiques: Empirical tests of Social Bonding Theory have revealed several limitations. For instance, Kempf (1993) noted that many studies testing the theory often omit one or more of the four bonding elements, leading to incomplete assessments. Furthermore, across numerous studies, attachment is frequently found to be the most influential predictor, often overshadowing the effects of commitment, involvement, and beliefs, suggesting an imbalance in the predictive power of the components.
Social Learning Theory (Akers, 1985, 1998; reformulation of Sutherland’s Differential Association)
Core idea: Akers' Social Learning Theory, building on Sutherland's Differential Association, posits that criminal and deviant behavior is primarily learned through social interaction, particularly within intimate personal groups. Individuals acquire the specific motives, drives, rationalizations, and definitions (attitudes) that are favorable to violating laws.
Four components:
Differential association: Refers to the direct and indirect interactions with others that serve to expose an individual to patterns of conformity and deviance. It involves the social groups that provide models and definitions, shaping an individual's attitudes and values. Primary groups, such as family and close peers, are most influential, but secondary groups like religious institutions, schools, and even mass media or online communities can also play a role.
Definitions: These are an individual's own attitudes, beliefs, rationalizations, and neutralizations regarding the acceptability or unacceptability of certain behaviors. Definitions can be general (e.g., moral beliefs about obeying the law) or specific (e.g., rationalizing a specific act of theft). Definitions favorable to deviance justify or excuse delinquent acts, weakening internal restraints.
Differential reinforcement: Explains how criminal behavior is maintained. It refers to the balance of actual or anticipated rewards and punishments that follow or are consequences of behavior. Positive reinforcement (e.g., peer approval, material gain from theft) increases the likelihood of a behavior being repeated, while negative reinforcement (e.g., escaping an unpleasant situation through drug use) also strengthens behavior. Punishments, conversely, reduce it.
Imitation: Involves the modeling of behaviors observed in others. The initiation of a particular criminal or deviant act is often linked to the observation and subsequent imitation of those behaviors, especially if the models are seen as important or successful, or if observed behaviors are reinforced.
Empirical pattern: Research consistently shows that social learning factors often have stronger and more consistent associations with various forms of delinquency than social bonding factors in many empirical studies. This robust predictive power extends across a variety of delinquent outcomes and diverse cultural contexts (Akers 1998; supported by multiple meta-analytic findings).
Cross-cultural relevance and prior comparisons
Cross-cultural studies have yielded varying support for the relative importance of social bonding versus social learning factors in explaining deviance. For instance, several studies conducted in non-Western contexts (e.g., Hwang & Akers 2003 in Korea; Svensson 2003 in Sweden; Meneses 2009 in Portugal; Cheung & Cheung 2008 in Hong Kong) have specifically found social learning factors, particularly differential association with delinquent peers, to be highly salient and consistently strong predictors across diverse cultural settings.
Prior methodological limitations: Much of the prior work comparing these theories often focused on only a single form of deviance (e.g., substance use, sexual behavior) or utilized general student samples. This narrow focus limited the ability to draw comprehensive cross-form inferences about whether specific theories are better suited to explain different types of delinquent behaviors.
Research aims and contributions
Aims:
To empirically examine whether the explanatory power of social bonding and social learning theories varies significantly across five distinct and common types of juvenile deviance: status offenses, substance abuse, sexual deviance, theft, and violence. This directly addresses the critique against general theories by testing for theoretical heterogeneity.
To utilize a unique sample of sentenced Korean youth, allowing for a rigorous, simultaneous comparison of these two prominent theories within a delinquent population. The goal is to identify which specific theoretical mechanisms (bonding vs. learning) are most prominent and impactful for each particular form of deviance.
Key contribution: By analyzing separate, distinct deviant behaviors rather than relying on a single, aggregated measure of general delinquency, this study significantly contributes to the criminological literature. It allows for a precise assessment of whether one dominant theory serves as a universal explanation for all crime, or if a more nuanced theory-by-behavior approach, where different theories are more appropriate for different behaviors, is empirically supported.
Methods: data, measures, and analytic strategy
Sample and data collection
Data source: The study utilized self-reported survey data originally collected by the Korean Institute of Criminology (KIC) during the summer of 2005. This comprehensive dataset was designed to capture a wide range of experiences and attitudes among justice-involved youth.
Population: The target population for this study consisted of youths in South Korea who had already been adjudicated for delinquent acts. This included individuals sentenced under probation, incarcerated in juvenile reformatories, or residing in specialized support facilities for sexual offenders. This specific focus provides insight into high-risk, justice-system-involved youth.
Panel structure: The data exhibited a clustered, or panel, structure, as youths were nested within eight distinct facilities (e.g., different reformatories or probation offices). This hierarchical structure necessitated the use of multilevel modeling to properly account for potential non-independence of observations within facilities.
Gender: The sample was intentionally designed to achieve a balanced representation of gender, with roughly equal numbers of males and females, ensuring adequate power to detect gender-specific effects if present.
Age: The mean age of the sampled youths was approximately 16.37 years, with a standard deviation (SD) of about 1.74 years, indicating a relatively concentrated age range for juvenile offenders.
Data collection method: Highly trained interviewers administered structured questionnaires. These lengthy questionnaires systematically inquired about the youths' past delinquent experiences, their relationships with family and peers, and their attitudes and beliefs regarding conventional norms and laws. All interviews were conducted in a culturally sensitive and confidential manner.
Sample characteristics (descriptive): The final analyzed sample maintained a similar gender ratio to the intended design (males ≈ 54%, females ≈ 46%), with a mean age of approximately 16.37 years.
Dependent variables (five forms of deviance)
Adolescent status offenses (\alpha = 0.821): This scale comprised five items measuring behaviors typically considered delinquent due to the offender's age, rather than being inherently criminal. Examples included having been to a pub (underage), cheating on an exam, skipping school repeatedly, running away from home, and belonging to a delinquent group. This category reflects violations of age-based norms.
Substance abuse (\alpha = 0.810): This scale assessed experiences with various psychoactive substances, encompassing alcohol consumption, cigarette smoking, use of inhalants, and hallucinogens. It captures the spectrum of drug and alcohol use among youth.
Sexual deviance (\alpha = 0.902): This comprehensive scale measured engagement in various forms of sexual misconduct. Items included involvement in inappropriate sexual relationships with peers, engaging in prostitution, experiences as a victim of prostitution, or participation in rape (either as victim or perpetrator). This category represents serious violations of social and legal sexual norms.
Theft (\alpha = 0.921): This scale covered five distinct types of theft, ranging from less serious acts like shoplifting to more serious offenses such as the theft of bicycles, cars, or breaking into vacant houses. It also explicitly included items regarding the intention or preparation to commit theft, not just completed acts.
Violence (\alpha = 0.935): This scale included items measuring experiences with serious aggressive and coercive behaviors, such as involvement in robbery, vandalism (specifically targeting cars), and participation in gang fights. This category reflects physical aggression and property destruction.
Key descriptive reliability (alphas) for dependent variables were strong, indicating good internal consistency for each scale:
Status offenses: \alpha = 0.821
Substance use: \alpha = 0.810
Sexual deviance: \alpha = 0.902
Theft: \alpha = 0.921
Violence: \alpha = 0.935
Independent variables: measures of social control (bonding) and social learning
Social bonding variables (Hirschi):
Attachment to family (\alpha = 0.908): This scale captured the youth's perceptions of the quality of their family relationships and the level of mutual trust within the family unit (e.g., items reflecting