Pepper 1

Sydny Pepper

Crim Research Methods

Dr. Galehan

22 November 2020

Explaining Gender Differences in violent Crimes:

An Empirical test of General Strain Theory Among Female Perpetrators
 Pepper 2

Abstract

The current method of understanding Gender differences in violent and nonviolent

crimes, from a behavioral perspective, examines Agnew’s (1992) general strain theory. Stain

theory suggests that social pressure from outside factors such as lack of economic stability or

education, drives individuals to act out in violent criminal ways. Consistent with this theory,

males and females experience strain in different ways, as well as their emotional responses.

Which in turn is theorized to be linked with delinquency. Focusing on the strains that effect men

and women, even in their adolescence, as well as how they each have to deal these forms of

negative emotions produces multiple gendered outcomes in deviance. It’s been found in multiple

studies that depressive symptoms are particularly linked to deviance in females. As well as

societal standards, social cognitive ability, and childhood trauma. These studies reveal that the

actual processes of seeing strain and the externalization or internalization in itself is also

gendered. The gendered general strain theory, or GGST explain that in certain situations women

actually out rank men in violent crimes, despite their lack of representation.
 Pepper 3

Introduction

Little is known about the psychology of crime. According to author Kendra Cherry, the

beginning of forensic or criminal psychology began is 1879. Wilhelm Wundt, also known as the

father of psychology, began his first lab experience in this year. Shockingly, even less is known

about women in crime. In the National Institute of Justice’s book, Research on Women and

Girls in the Justice System, there is a misconception ingrained in the mind of society that the

criminal actions of women are not to be taken seriously. Leaving women and delinquent girls

out of the historical crime record. This significant gender gap leaves much room for error when

it comes to understanding crime, gender studies, psychology, and even criminal outreach and

prevention programs. Since the year 2000, there has been a slow and steady rise in criminal

behavior committed by this marginalized gender. This paper seeks to understand the particular

circumstances in which women and delinquent girls commit crime, as well as the psychology

behind it. In conclusion, we will survey incarcerated females and seek to gather a time-line that

explains why, how, and the progression of their crime.

Literature Review

In Agnew’s original general strain theory, gender lines and gaps were not a well-

developed aspect of the theory. However, in the late 1990’s Broidy and Agnew adapted the

theory and created the gendered general strain theory (GGST). By bringing gender to the

framework of strain theory we can outline the major differences within the experience as well as

the reactions to strains that make the crime gap between men and women so drastic. In Agnew’s

original strain theory, the focus remains consistent with the fact that negative outside sources are

a dominating force in the psyche. Such as the failure to achieve positive goals, removal of

positive stimuli, and the introduction of negative stimuli. Agnew argued these theories can,
 Pepper 4

“explain delinquency in terms of the individuals’ social relationships” (Agnew, 1992).

Furthermore, “this negative affect creates pressure for corrective action and may lead adolescents

to (1) make use of illegitimate channels of goal achievement, (2) attack or escape from the

source of their adversity, and/or (3) manage their negative affect through the use of illicit drugs”

(Agnew 1992). This is especially true through the use of societies increasingly high standards

of success, especially in women which adds to depressive tendencies. The notion that “the

structure of American society creates the lower social echelons, and consequently, explain lower-

class crime” was also discussed by Brown, Esbensen & Geis (2013). These goals are places out

of reach for a majority or even a certain part of society and are “distorted aspirations, unrealistic

desires for attainment, and crass materialism” (Brown et al., 2013). One of the main underlying

factors of the GGST, however, that remains unstudied is gender socialization.

General Gender strain Theory

L. Broidy and R. Agnew reanalyze the original GST theory to suggest that in order to

understand the gender differences in crime, understanding gendered reactions to strain is used to

fill the gaps. Joanne Kaufman applied this in depth by focusing her research on serious strains

relevant to both men and women. This includes external and internal forms of negative

emotions, and including multiple “gendered deviant outcomes” (Kaufman 2009). She

incorporates the use of the Add Health data set to gather a nonbiased sample. Her results show

that the actual experience of serious strain is gendered. In women, depressive symptoms are an

important factor in all types of deviance. Her findings support the GST, feminist theorizing, and

the sociology of mental health. Using an actual database is a pro, con is there was not a lot of

data in publishment

Social Cognitive Ability

 Pepper 5

Sarah Bennett emphasizes the importance of social cognition and how it can be used

alongside with trait theory to explain criminal gender differences. Social cognition is commonly

defined as a focus on how individuals process, store, and apply information about other people

and social environment. Individual responses to stressful events or risks depend greatly on how

that event is viewed and processed. This highlights the importance of the individual's cognitive

processes. “Social information-processing skills allow individuals to encode information,

interpret and consider risks and benefits of a particular action, and determine an appropriate

response based on their repertoire of behavioral scripts” (Bennett 2004). It is stated that rather

than cognitive capabilities cause crime, but she counters with it being the certain ways of

processing social information. Females in her study have shown to exhibit lower rates of

criminal offense compared to men because of their early cognitive development. While accurate

in this sense and it highlights a new perspective, her verbiage is incredibly biased and alluding to

the fact that women are superior in all cognitive aspects. That is not a part of this study, and

when study cognitive or behavioral factors in gender differences the researcher has to tread

lightly with how the brain is discussed.

Societal Standards

Gender socialization and societal standards are not an uncommon force for the American

population, especially for women. In a 2018 study conducted by Deena A. Isom Scott, she uses

Broidy and Agnew’s (GGST) to deepen the understanding of why women have a consistently

lower representation in crime statistics. She states, “Broidy and Agnew’s gendered general

strain (GGST) attempts to bring gender forefront within a general strain theory framework by

outlining the differences in experiences and responses to strain between women and men” (Scott

2018). One of these strains and responses that is gender is the influence of society. This article
 Pepper 6

brings in a new perspective: the influence of gender in society and the socialization on criminal

punishment or “outcomes” (Scott 2018). The overlooked aspect of internalized gender norms of

heteronormativity has proven to contribute largely to Women’s depressive states, especially in

what is seen as a typical American house hold setting and the domestic abuse. Is it possible, that

these factors have become so deeply ingrained in a woman’s mind that it influences her

perceptions of strain and her response? The same can be equally applied to masculine reactions

in turn. Her study consisted a sample of female college students in order to find internalized

gender roles. This sample would prove to be problematic because it’s a biased sample group,

and doesn’t speak for a majority of the class system. In terms of studying violent and nonviolent

crimes and the gender roles associated, looking within a group that would require a sample of

those who have criminal outcomes or are older. College age women are increasingly much more

feminist and known for breaking gender norms.

Responses to Strain

As mentioned previously, it has been theorized that one of the main contributors to

female violence is strain caused by in-home and intimate relations. This was backed by a 2019

study, “Gender Differences in Patterns and Trends in U.S. Homicide, 1976-2017.” The study

conducted by Emma E. Fridel and James Alan Fox has the advantage of modern studies and data.

This proves to be a significant gain considering gender studies in homicide are typically over

looked. Despite the overwhelming percentage of male perpetrated homicides, this study shows

that there is a difference in the patterns of, “female offending and victimization that should not

be obscured in the aggregate” (Fridel & Fox 2019). Among all the results, the one unanimously

voted as the most interesting is the difference between men and women are “intimate” homicides

dealing with a spouse or partner. It is primarily focused within domestic violence. It has an
 Pepper 7

interconnected topic associated with gender roles rooted in society. Such as the reduced rate in

partner victimization now that there are more acceptable paths of escape. There has been a sixty

percent decline in the last four decades thanks to resources allowing the women to escape

domestic abuse through legal means without feeling forced to kill her abuser. Notedly, this has

only shown to be true from Caucasian women, and male victims. This study found no decrease in

violence perpetrated by black women or the rate of male abusers. This representation of black

women may bring into the question of prison demographics and how intersectionality coupled

with strain theory should be factored in. There are no critiques for this research; all the data was

displayed in a concise manner and they replicated work with up to date data from the FBI’s

national homicide data base in order to get a full range of gender differences among race, age,

weapon, situations and the victim’s relationship with offender.

Another study worth noting is “Self-Reported Crime Rates of Women Prisoners” by Kim

English in 1993. This is the first study of female prisoners by self-report, and to diminish as

much bias as possible she used the Criminal Career Paradigm to frame her analysis questions.

Notable similarities in a range of eight different felony crimes between men and women’s crime

patterns were found, with one exception. A particular pattern for women emerged in a daily

sampling of drug dealing activity. This reflects the third aspect of stain theory “... manage their

negative affect through the use of illicit drugs” (Agnew 1992). English states that, “The

findings reflect the value of the criminal career paradigm for the study of gender differences”

(English 193).

Childhood Trauma
 Pepper 8

As stated previously, strain theory consists of many outside factors and the psychological

effect these play on the individual. These primarily negative factors differentiate it from social

learning and social control because of “its specification of the type of social relationship that

leads to delinquency and the motivation for delinquency” (Agnew 1992). The study conducted

by Herrera & McCloskey in 2001 accurately encompasses this because of its focus on exposure

and gender result in adolescent delinquency. Veronica M Herrera writes, “The purpose of this

research was to illuminate gender differences in adolescent delinquency against a backdrop of

childhood exposure to both marital violence and physical child abuse” (Herrera 1997). Her

results show that although there was only a small gendered difference in referral to juvenile

court, exposure marital violence predicted referrals. Further results showed boys were referred

more for property damage, violent offenses, and felony. While girls with a history of physical

abuse were arrested for violent offenses more than boys with the same abuse history. Almost all

violent offense referrals for girls were for domestic violence’s. This concluded that girls are

more prone to arrest for violent offenses because of abuses endured in their childhood.

According to Herrera, this suggests it takes more severe abuse to, “prompt violence in girls than

is necessary to explain boys’ violent offending” (Herrera 1997). This adaption of violence in

women is a pertinent find. Some critiques of this study are her methodology. Two hundred

ninety-nine children were interviewed with their mothers, while it was necessary their parents

were present because they were too young, was there no fear of skewed data from the mothers?

In attempting to add to this body of knowledge, methods in future studies of gender

differences in crime should have a focused sample group among female prisoners. Questions

about home life, intimate relationships, childhood abuse and coping methods should all be

addressed. Along with a test of cognitive ability, if consented to, in order to test the individual
 Pepper 9

responses to stressful events. Perhaps used in a method of comparison between two groups of

male and female prisoners with similar crime records, the question of gender differences can

finally be answered.

Research Questions
In studying gender differences in the crime world, there are many roads of methodology to be

chosen from. Being under the social science qualifications, the best course of actions for

detailing the methodology would be a mix of qualitative and quantitative research, with

secondary sources to provide background data for the quantitative as well as a random

representative sample for the research participants.

Given this sample of select prisons in the highest and lowest economically developed

areas, and then the random representative sample from women within the prisons, the best way

to test this is by handing out surveys and conducting open ended interviews. This qualitative

research will be much more beneficial in the social science aspect because the question of gender

differences in crime is not answered with simple graphs or quantitative research. The

quantitative proves that there is a gap between the genders as well as what kinds, but does not

answer why. So, there will be a combination of quantitative, graphs and data gathered from

secondary sources to provide evidence for rates of homicide and crimes committed by each

specific gender. As well as rates of incarceration and victimization. As seen in the FBI’s

national homicide data base as well as self-reported crime rates and. However, to understand the

“why” aspect, it would be best to apply Agnew’s 1992 gendered general strain theory to the

open-ended interviews in search of qualitative data to answer my hypotheses. To be able to do

this however, the researcher would have to get in contact with the prisons of choice, then get in

touch with the warden and get the consent of the women to access their information in order to
 Pepper 10

get an accurate representative sample. This is where the most issues are predicted to happen in

gaining time and accessibility to the women who would be willing to participate.

The secondary and previously existing data being used contain the following independent

variables; child abuse, crime intimacy, and cognitive ability effected by social strain. The

dependent variable are the violent crime rates. All of these things have proven to cause an

increase in the rates of violent crimes committed by women, but not necessarily men. Despite

this being fool proof in theory, as the data comes from scholarly articles, using secondary

sources comes with its own issues. The researcher has to aware of potential flaws in past

research, especially bias, that could affect the strength of my own data and reasonings. Also,

secondary research, depending on the research, could give a very one-dimensional summary of

the picture if no data graphs are presented. Also, with the sample group being under twenty-

four-hour surveillance, time may prove to be a difficult commodity.

Despite all of these potential flaws, compiling collections of research allows room to pick

the best of all of them as well as the relative mistakes and use that data to build off of the

research. For example, combining Herrera’s 19997 study involving childhood trauma and the

data gained from the graphs from the national homicide database, it has been made apparent that

young girls exposed to violence in childhood are more likely to commit domestic violence by

homicide, as opposed to males exposed to this same violence. Furthermore, the hypothesis in

question is that of a social science which is the most popular in the world of secondary research.

Working with violent criminals always poses ethical questions. Especially in search of a ‘Why’

answer. This is not mean to give an excuse for the behavior, only attempt to understand the

behavior so the information can be used for prevention methods. This difference is often lost in

the grey area of research, which will be gained back in the practice of individual interviews.
 Pepper 11

“Emotional Risk to Respondents in Survey Research: Some Empirical Evidence” by Susan

Labott, Timothy Johnson, Michael Fendrich, and Noah Feeny prove that “survey research has

documented distress in respondents with pre-existing emotional vulnerabilities, suggesting the

possibility of harm” (Lambott et. All 2014). Individual surveys should also not be taken lightly.

Interviews about distressing topics can affect the interviewee and therefore the information

provided. The need to build report first should be of utmost importance.

Methodology
Present Study

Using longitudinal data with a representative sample of female prisoners to apply an

empirical test of General strain theory, the following research hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Women who experience a history of physical abuse as a child are at higher

risk for committing violent crimes.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Underrepresentation of females in crime is because of the “intimacy” of their

crimes. However, decrease is only notable in White women. Not women of color or men.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Internalized gender norms contributes to women’s depressive states.

Method

Data and Sample

Data used in this study came from multiple peer reviewed journals and primary sources,

including but not limited to the following; The Foundation for a General Strain Theory of Crime

by R. Agnew, School of Criminology, Gendered Differences in Patterns and Trends in the U.S

Homicide and the eighth edition of Explaining Crime in its Context. Each of these sources
 Pepper 12

provide graphs and data gathered from the FBI’s national homicide data base, face to face

interviews, or surveys framed by the Criminal Career Paradigm. Compiling each of these

different sources makes the attempt to gather as much data as possible to answer the question of

criminal gender differences from all angles. It also helps shape the data needed for future

questionaries and surveys.

Measures

Dependent Variable

Violent crime rates including arrest or incarceration would be measured using the overall crime

rates from the locations of where most of the women in the prison are from, then how many of

that data in the areas were women. The surveys/in person interviews will be distributed to ask

each representative participant a variety of cognitive questions as well as open ended questions

targeting societal roles and relationships as well as past events. Each question will give insight

into the strain theory and how women and men differentiate in crime. These crime rates will be

what is being measured at the expense of the following independent variables:

Independent Variables

Child abuse, crime intimacy, and Cognitive ability effected by social strain are all of the

independent variable affecting the outcome of female crime rates compared to men. Child abuse

and childhood traumas were studied by Herrera and McCloskey in 2001 as an interview of the

child with a mother present. This could possibly cause implications to the truth of the child’s

answer depending on their home life. Two hundred ninety- nine children were interviewed and

results showed little gender difference in referrals to juvenile court; but large differences in type

of crime. Males were referred on cases of property damage and girls for violent crimes and
 Pepper 13

domestic abuse. Which leads into the second independent variable, crime intimacy (Fridel &

Fox 2019). They used the date provided by the FBI’s national homicide database to show the

gender, race, age, weapon and even victim situation. The graphs were organized int rates per one

hundred thousand from the years 1975 through 2017, each showing a decline since the

introduction of outreach programs. However, the percentage of males killing females is still

significantly higher, with an eighteen to six per-cent ratio. They also provided insight to

demographic differences including age. As well as homicide rates, and the same for all the

victims. Then the last independent variable is the cognitive ability and the possible effect these

strains have on a person’s development and criminal response. Then, Broidy and Agnew’s

Gendered General Strain theory to assess the levels of how much society interplays with strain

processing and if this affects cognitive ability. Combining this theory and study findings

suggest that the overlooked aspect of gender norms contributes to female depressive states and

effects their cognitive ability. Bennett’s findings suggest these ways of processing social intake

and cognitive memory play on how individuals are or are not pressured into criminal behavior.

She also argues that because of this, females develop these skills earlier in life and this is why

they have “lower” violent offending rates.

All of these factors and variable would be included to frame the survey, and the sample

frame would be a race representative gathering of women from the selected prisons from high-

and low-income areas.

Methodological Issues

As briefly discussed in previous sections, there are always a number of limitations when

attempting to conduct research with prison inmates. An interview conducted in 1951 by Robert

Sorenson demonstrates a few of these potential flaws. The professor of sociology at the State
 Pepper 14

University of Nebraska, “has found it necessary to obtain the opinion of over two hundred prison

inmates” (Sorensen 1951). At this time, and still today, there is very little writing about the

logistic issues concerning inmate interviews. He found that the inmates he interviewed were

“tied up” in the circumstance of there incarceration and wanted to talk about the unjust system

and that they were incarcerated under a false pretense. He also realized that any and all

allowance of researchers in the penitentiary are overseen by the management. This leads the

prisoner to automatically become suspicious of the relationship between the warden and the

interviewer. As well as what other inmates have said, and what their treatment will be

afterwards. Lastly, Sorenson discovered that there is a stigma associated with interviewers and

that there is a significant difference between the two “worlds.” Often the interviewer was seen

as suggesting blame or offering assistance. The assumption is that these problems will, as with

most other prison research projects, reoccur within this one. This interview will also be an open-

ended questionnaire, and will hold a cognitive analysis. The researcher must make sure to build

a report with each interviewee. This will build a trust relationship to ensure the answers are as

nonbiased and informational as possible, without the subject feeling belittled, spied upon, or any

other unethical concerns.

Discussion

It is predicted this research study will reveal much insight into the world of gendered

crime and answer all of the hypothesis. Especially hypothesis one, (that women who experience

a history of physical abuse as a child are at higher risk for committing violent crimes) will have

the greatest impact on the dependent variable. There is also a significant chance that the

dependent variable will be affected by all of the hypothesis. Weather it be child abuse,
 Pepper 15

cognition, or crime intimacy. Or, it be chronological; that child abuse causes cognition

disturbances, which causes the strain response to intimate crimes. In many sociological studies it

has shown that multiple factors are always in direct correlation with one another. This is the

anticipated finding because there is no reason that this study should be an outlier to this trend.

Conclusion

Being able to understand the psychology of the marginalized gender within the world of

crime will break down many barriers. Prevention methods, outreach programs, the fields of

psychology and criminology will experience significant progress. As well as the police, the FBI,

and other law enforcement programs who deal with the incarceration and trials of women and

delinquent girls. It is also predicted that this will be a significant step in the world of twenty first

century feminist studies. This will contribute largely to the third hypothesis; the overlooked

aspect of internalized gender norms contributes to women’s depressive states. This study would

help solve this issue because with an increased knowledge of why women commit crime, and

how they feel about this causation, prevention methods and support can be made accessible at the

earliest signs in delinquency. Then, perhaps, there wouldn’t be a gender gap when it comes to

support for female victims or perpetrators.

 Pepper 16

Sources

Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a General Strain Theory of Crime and Delinquency.

Criminology, 30, (1), 47-87.

Bennett, S., Farrington, D., & Huesmann, L. (2004, September 21). Explaining gender

differences in crime and violence: The importance of social cognitive skills. Retrieved

October 06, 2020, from

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178904000618

Brown, S., Esbensen, F., & Geis, G. (2013). Criminology: Explaining Crime and its Context (8th

ed.). Waltham, MA: Anderson.

Cherry, K. (2020, March 26). Why Forensic Psychology Is an Important Part of Crime Solving.

Retrieved November 19, 2020, from https://www.verywellmind.com/history-of-forensic-

psychology-2795254

English, K. (1993). Self-Reported Crime Rates of Women Prisoners. Retrieved from

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23366014

Fridel, E., School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, And, Fox, J., Address correspondence to:

James Alan Fox, C, B., . . . Emma E. Fridel and James Alan Fox. (2019, March 11).

Gender Differences in Patterns and Trends in U.S. Homicide, 1976–2017. Retrieved

October 07, 2020, from https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/vio.2019.0005

 Pepper 17

Herrera, V., & McCloskey, L. (2001, September 04). Gender differences in the risk for

delinquency among youth exposed to family violence☆,☆☆. Retrieved October 06, 2020,

from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213401002551

Kaufman, J. (2009). Gendered Responses to Serious Strain: The Argument for a General Strain

Theory of Deviance. Retrieved October 07, 2020, from

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07418820802427866

Labott, S., Johnson, T., Fendrich, M., & Feeny, N. (2013, October). Emotional risks to

respondents in survey research. Retrieved November 25, 2020, from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3996452/

Scott, D. I. (n.d.). 'Gender' and general strain theory: Investigating the impact of gender

socialization on young women's criminal outcomes. Retrieved October 06, 2020, from

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0735648X.2018.1559754?journalCode=rjc

j20

Robert C. Sorensen, Interviewing Prison Inmates, 41 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 180 (1950-

1951)

Richie, B. E., Tsenin, K., & Widom, C. S. (2000, September). Research on Women and Girls in

the Justice System. Retrieved November 19, 2020, from

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/180973.pdf
 Pepper 18

Appendix

Survey and interview questions, ideally along with a cognitive analysis:

Survey: (Intended for women who have a criminal past)

1) Where did you grow up?

2) How was your home life?

3) Was it of high or low economic status (H or L)?

4) Was there any presence of distress, physical or emotional, and could you explain it?

5) How long did you attend school(s)?

6) what is your current level of education?

7) What is your occupation?

8) How long have you worked there?

9) Are you married/ in a relationship?

10) Is it mostly happy or is there presence of domestic disturbance?

11) Tell me about your social life

12) Is there much exposure to violence in your social life?

13) Race/ Ethnicity

14) Have you ever experienced prejudice?

15) Explain why/ how you became involved in (insert Crime)?

16) If you are ever put in this position again, then what would you do?