Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 81 – 87

The relationship between crime and “objective”

versus “subjective” strains
Giacinto Froggio a , Robert Agnew b,⁎
a
Department for the Study of Juvenile Deviance, Istituto “Progetto Uomo”, Viale Fiume, 112, Viterbo, 01030, Italy
b
Department of Sociology, Emory University, 155 Dickey Drive, Atlanta, GA 30322, United States

Abstract

Agnew's (2001, 2006) general strain theory makes a distinction between “objective” strains, which refer to events and
conditions which are disliked by most people in a given group, and “subjective” strains, which refer to events and conditions which
are disliked by the people who have experienced them. Agnew argues that there is only partial overlap between objective and
subjective strains, since many people do not subjectively evaluate the objective strains they experience in a negative manner.
Further, Agnew argues that subjective strains should be more strongly associated with crime, since they are more likely to generate
the negative emotions that lead to crime. This article tests Agnew's arguments with data from a sample of Italian youth. The results
provide some support for Agnew, suggesting that many people do not evaluate the objective strains they experience in a negative
manner and that subjective strains are more strongly associated with crime than are objective strains. These findings have important
implications for the research on general strain theory.
© 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction others to result in crime. A core argument in this area is

General strain theory (GST) has become one of the
leading explanations of crime and delinquency (Agnew,
1992, 2006). According to the theory, individuals who
experience strains or stressors are more likely to engage
in crime. Strains are defined as events and conditions
which are disliked by individuals. Strains lead to neg-
ative emotions and thereby create pressure for corrective
action. Crime is one possible response, with crime being
used to reduce or escape from strains, seek revenge
against the source of the strains or related targets, and/or
alleviate negative emotions (through illicit drug use).
Agnew (2001, 2006) recently extended GST by
arguing that some types of strains are more likely than
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 404 727 7502; fax: +1 404 727 7532.
E-mail address: bagnew@emory.edu (R. Agnew).
0047-2352/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.11.017
that “subjective” strains are more strongly related to crime
than “objective” strains. Objective strains refer to events
and conditions that are disliked by most people in a given
group, while subjective strains refer to events and
conditions that are disliked by the people who have
experienced them. Drawing on the stress literature,
Agnew stated that there is only partial overlap between
objective and subjective strains. That is, objective strains
are sometimes not disliked or strongly disliked by the
people experiencing them. For example, while most
students do not like to receive failing grades, some
students are not particularly upset when they receive such
grades. According to Agnew, subjective strains should be
more strongly related to crime since they are more likely
to generate the negative emotions that lead to crime.
Agnew's arguments regarding objective and subjec-
tive strains have not been tested. As Agnew (2001, 2006)
82 G. Froggio, R. Agnew / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 81–87
pointed out, almost all research on GST focused on
objective strains (although see Agnew & White, 1992;
Broidy, 2001; Landau, 1997; Sharp, Terling-Watt, Atkins,
Gilliam, & Sanders, 2001). That is, such research focused
on events and conditions which were assumed to be
disliked by most people (researchers typically did not test
this assumption). For example, researchers examined
whether individuals who received failing grades at school
or had divorced parents were more likely to engage in
delinquency. There was no attempt to measure the extent
to which these events were disliked by the individuals
experiencing them. As a consequence, such studies may
have underestimated the effect of strains on crime.
This article provides the first test of Agnew's
arguments regarding objective and subjective strains.
Drawing on a sample of Italian youth, this article
focuses on several events and conditions which are
generally assumed to be disliked by most people (i.e.,
are objective strains). This article first examines the
extent to which such strains are disliked by the people
experiencing them. That is, this article examines the
extent to which these objective strains function as
subjective strains. If Agnew is correct, there should be
significant variation in the extent to which many
objective strains are disliked. This article then examines
whether those strains which are strongly disliked are
more strongly associated with crime. This research has
important implications for GST. If Agnew's arguments
are correct, that suggests that most prior research may
have underestimated the effects of strains on crime and
that future research should employ subjective as well as
objective measures of strains.
Background
Research suggests that many strains increase the
likelihood of crime (Agnew, 2001, 2006). Such strains
include parental sanctions that are harsh, erratic, and/or
unfair; child abuse; parental rejection; low grades; poor
relations with teachers; peer abuse; marital problems;
chronic unemployment; work in the secondary labor
market; criminal victimization; homelessness; and
experiences with prejudice and discrimination (Agnew,
2006). Agnew (2001), however, stated that the effect of
many of these strains on crime is sometimes moderate in
size. Further, certain strains do not increase crime. For
example, the inability to achieve educational and
occupational goals is unrelated to crime. These findings
raise a major question: what determines the strength of
the relationship between particular strains and crime?
Agnew's (2001, 2006) response to this question was in
two parts.
Agnew first noted that researchers typically examine
events and conditions which are assumed to be disliked
by most individuals (i.e., objective strains). He argued,
however, that many of the individuals experiencing
these events and conditions may not dislike them very
much.1 That is, these objective strains may not function
as subjective strains. This may partly account for the
moderate to weak effect of strains in many studies, since
events and conditions are unlikely to generate negative
emotions unless they are disliked by the individuals
experiencing them. This article tests Agnew's argu-
ments in this area.
The stress literature provides some support for
Agnew's assertion that there is only partial overlap
between objective and subjective strains. A classic study
by Wheaton (1990), for example, found that people
differ in the subjective evaluation of their divorces, with
some people viewing their divorces in a positive light. A
range of factors may influence the subjective evaluation
of objective strains, including the individual's goals,
values, identities, personality traits, and prior experi-
ences (see Dohrenwend, 1998; Kaplan, 1996; Lazarus,
1999; Wheaton, 1990). For example, individuals who
possess the personality trait of negative emotionality are
easily upset and tend to experience strong emotional
reactions when upset (Agnew, Brezina, Wright, &
Cullen, 2002). As a consequence, such individuals
may be more likely to strongly dislike the objective
strains they experience. Environmental factors may also
influence the individual's subjective reaction to objec-
tive strains. For example, individuals may be part of
family, peer, and community groups that define certain
objective strains as quite negative. This is, in fact, a core
argument of subcultural deviance theory. It is claimed
that the members of some subcultural groups learn to
view certain events and conditions as highly aversive
(e.g., Anderson, 1999; Bernard, 1990; Wolfgang &
Ferracuti, 1982). So there is reason to believe that
individuals may differ in their subjective evaluation of
objective strains. Agnew's assertion, however, that
subjective strains are more strongly related to crime
than are objective strains has not to the authors'
knowledge been tested.
It is important to note that Agnew went on to argue
that not all subjective strains will result in crime. In
particular, Agnew (2001, 2006) stated that effect of
strains on crime is also influenced by the extent to which
these strains are high in magnitude, are perceived as
unjust, are associated with low social control, are easily
resolved through crime, and foster the social learning of
crime. This article does not test these arguments, but it
does attempt to focus on strains that meet these criteria.
 G. Froggio, R. Agnew / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 81–87
This is sometimes difficult to do, given the very general
description of certain strains in the study. One such
strain, for example, is the death of a friend. It is difficult
to say whether this strain meets the above criteria, since
that depends on the circumstances of the death. For
example, individuals may not view the death of a friend
as unjust if the friend died of natural causes, but may
view the death as quite unjust if the friend was killed by
rival gang members.
Data and methods
Data
Data for this study were from a convenience sample
of five hundred Italian youth aged fifteen to twenty-five,
with the sample split evenly between males and females.
These youth were surveyed between September 2004
and July 2005. Most such youth were high school
students (n = 208), university students (n = 48), and
workers (n = 32) in the city of Viterbo, a provincial
capital of 57,000 residents about sixty miles from Rome.
Additional youth were surveyed in Catanzaro, a
provincial capital of 367,000 residents in southern
Italy. These youth also included high school students
(n = 12), university students (n = 29), and workers
(n = 11). Still other youth were surveyed in Milan,
including high students (n = 17), university students
(n = 23), and workers (n = 10). Finally, 110 “high-risk”
youth were surveyed, so as to maximize the diversity of
the sample. These youth included drug addicts in Rome
and Mantua who were receiving methadone, but no other
services (n = 16); drug addicts receiving treatment at
therapeutic communities in Catanzaro (n = 26) and
Rome (n = 22); adjudicated offenders under the
supervision of the criminal justice system (n = 14); and
a sample of youth deemed at-risk for crime by social
service agencies (n = 32). Further information on the
sample is reported below.
Although this article does not employ a representa-
tive sample of Italian youth, it can be taken as a rough
replication of general strain theory with Italian youth.
General strain theory has not been explicitly tested in
Italy, although researchers have found support for the
theory in studies conducted in China (Bao, Haas, & Pi,
2004), Korea (Moon & Morash, 2004), and the
Philippines (Maxwell, 2001). A few studies, however,
had found an association between selected stressors and
crime among Italian youth (Ciurla, 2001; Labos, 1994;
Marconi & Cappa, 2001; Palazzi, De Vito, Luzzati,
Guerrini, & Torre, 1990; Papini, Caterino, & Romoli,
2004; Valtancoli, Selvi, & Pazzagli, 1999). Such
83
stressors are not very different than those examined in
tests of GST in the United States, and they include
school failure, conflict between parents, parental abuse,
parental rejection, the breakup of romantic relationships,
and violent victimization.
Measures
Strain measures
Respondents were asked whether they experienced
twenty-four events and conditions generally seen as
negative, with most of these events/conditions being of
the type that are common in stressful life event scales
(e.g., death of a parent, illness/accident, parent's di-
vorce, unemployment). The focus in this study was on
those events experienced in the last two years by at least
10 percent (n = 50) of the sample. It is important that a
sufficient number of people experience the strain so that
variations in negativity ratings can be examined, and
strains experienced more than two years ago may have
little impact on currents levels of crime (see Agnew,
1992). Unfortunately (from the perspective of a crim-
inologist), many of the strains were experienced by too
few people in the last two years to be included in the
study (e.g., parent's divorce, betrayal by romantic
partner, having to stop an important activity, unemploy-
ment, challenges to masculine status).
This study also focused on the types of strains that
Agnew (2001) stated are more likely to lead to crime;
that is, those strains that are likely to be seen as unjust,
associated with low social control, easily resolved
through crime, and associated with the social learning
of crime. Many of the twenty-four events in the survey
were excluded because they did not appear to meet these
criteria. These strains include isolation from peers,
illness or accident, and the death of a relative or friend
(see Agnew, 2001, pp. 339, 342). For example, while
isolation from peers may be viewed as unjust, it is not
associated with the social learning of crime.
Four strains were the subject of analysis: (1) emo-
tional distance between the respondent and his or her
parent(s) because the parent(s) did not pay attention to
the respondent; (2) the breakup of a romantic rela-
tionship; (3) the breakup of an “important” friendship;
and (4) the receipt of failing grades at school. Agnew
(2001, pp. 343–345) specifically classifies low grades
and emotional distance between parent and child as
strains likely to lead to crime. Agnew is less clear about
the effect of the breakup of romantic relationships and
friendships on crime, although he does state that neg-
ative peer relations should increase the likelihood of
crime (2001, p. 346).
84 G. Froggio, R. Agnew / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 81–87

Table 1 strains reported that they viewed them as moderate to

The negativity ratings of the four strains high in negativity. This suggests that these strains are
A. Emotional distance from parents generally disliked and therefore qualify as “objective”
Not experience 89% (446) % among those strains. At the same time, there is still some variation
experiencing event in the negativity ratings, suggesting that there is only
1 (low negativity) 2% (11) 20% partial overlap between objective and subjective strains
2 2% (8) 15% (more below).
3 1% (5) 9%
4 2% (10) 19%
Control variables
5 1% (5) 9%
6 1% (5) 9% A range of variables were controlled when examining
7 (high negativity) 2% (10) 19% the relationship between strains and crime. These
variables refer to characteristics of the individual and
B. Romantic breakup the individual's social environment that may influence
Not experience 76% (380) the extent of strain on the one hand and delinquency on
1 1% (3) 3% the other (see Agnew, 2006). Such variables included the
2 2% (9) 8% respondent's criminal status (22 percent were at high-risk
3 2% (8) 7% for crime or had criminal records),2 sex (50 percent were
4 3% (16) 13% male), age (respondents ranged from fifteen to twenty-
5 4% (20) 17%
6 5% (25) 21%
five, with 46 percent being sixteen to eighteen), school
7 8% (39) 33% status (60 percent were full time students), living situation
(81 percent lived with their family of origin), education
C. Breakup of important friendship (22 percent were attending college or had a college
Not experience 82% (409) degree, 62 percent were attending high school or had a
1 0% (2) 2% high school degree only), and father's education (from
2 1% (6) 7% “none” to “a college degree”).
3 1% (4) 4% In addition, there were controls for what are per-
4 3% (15) 16% haps the two strongest correlates of crime: low self-
5 6% (32) 17%
control and association with criminal peers. The items
6 6% (32) 35%
7 8% (39) 43% measuring low self-control were taken from Grasmick,
Tittle, Bursik, and Arneklev (1993). High scorers on the
D. School failure five-item low self-control scale stated that the following
Not experience 90% (449) statements were very true of them: “I often act on the spur
1 1% (4) 8%
of the moment without stopping to think,” “I do whatever
2 0% (1) 2% brings me pleasure here and now, even at the cost of some
3 1% (6) 12% distant goal,” “Sometimes I will take a risk for the fun of
4 2% (10) 20% it,” “I lose my temper pretty easily,” and “When I'm really
5 2% (8) 16% angry, other people better stay away from me.” High
6 2% (12) 24%
7 2% (10) 20%
scorers on the eleven-item criminal friends' scale stated
that all of their friends engaged in the following acts:
thefts and robberies, assault, the use of light and hard
drugs, prostitution, vandalism, gang fights, drug selling,
Respondents were asked whether they experienced drunk driving, and sexual violence. Low self-control and
these four strains and when. Table 1 shows the percent- criminal friends had a .32 correlation with one another.
age of respondents who experienced each of these The criminal friends scale had a high number of missing
strains in the last two years, with the percentage ranging cases (n = 80). For that reason, analyses were run with and
from 10 percent (failing grades) to 24 percent (romantic without this scale. The results regarding the strain
breakup). Those respondents who experienced a strain measures were largely the same in both sets of analyses,
were also asked to rate how negative the strain was on a so the analyses without the criminal friends scale were
scale from 1 (not at all negative) to 7 (extremely nega- reported so as to maximize the number of valid cases.
tive). These negativity ratings were used to estimate (Note: the inclusion of the criminal friends scale in the
the subjective evaluation of the strains. As indicated in analyses reduced the effects of low self-control and school
Table 1, a majority of the individuals experiencing these status on crime to insignificance.)
 G. Froggio, R. Agnew / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 81–87
Crime
Crime was measured by asking respondents how
often they had performed each of ten offenses in the last
year, with the response categories being never (1), rarely
(2), sometimes (3), often (4), and usually (5). The offen-
ses were theft and robberies, assault, use of light and hard
drugs, prostitution, vandalism, gang fights, drug selling,
drunk driving, and sexual assault. Scores on the crime
scale ranged from 10 (never committed any of the
offenses) to 36. Approximately 38 percent of the sample
reported no offenses.
The crime measure was skewed to the right, calling
into question the appropriateness of ordinary least
squares (OLS) regression. For that reason, both OLS
and Poisson regressions were performed on the data (the
mean and variance of the crime scale were similar,
suggesting that the data fit a Poisson distribution). The
OLS and Poisson regression results were quite similar,
so only the OLS results are reported below. (Note: a
separate set of analyses employed a crime measure that
focused on the more serious and less frequent offenses of
theft and robberies, assault, use of hard drugs, gang
fights, drug selling, and sexual assaults. The results
regarding the strain measures were largely the same with
this scale, so only the results with the more general crime
measure are reported.)
Results
Agnew argued that many of the people who experi-
ence objective strains do not subjectively evaluate them
in a negative manner. Table 1 shows the negativity
ratings for those people who experienced each of the four
strains. As can be seen, there was substantial variation in
the subjective reaction to these strains. Take, for exam-
ple, that strain involving emotional distance from
parents. This strain was reported by 11 percent of the
sample or fifty-four people. Thirty-five percent of these
people rated this strain as quite low on the negativity
scale (1 or 2), while 28 percent rated it as quite high
(6 or 7). This variation may reflect the rather general way
in which this strain is described. This strain, in particular,
may involve a brief episode in which a parent ignored the
respondent, or it may involve persistent and severe
parental rejection. More specific descriptions of strains
may result in less variation in negativity ratings. This
point is perhaps evident with respect to that strain
involving the breakup of an important friendship. The
specification of an “important” friendship may partly
account for the fact that 78 percent of respondents
rated this strain as quite high in negativity (6 or 7).
Nevertheless, most of the strains displayed a fair degree
85
of variation in their negativity ratings. To provide
another illustration, 22 percent of respondents rated
their experience of school failure as 1, 2, or 3 on the
negativity scale, while 44 percent rated it as 6 or 7. While
the variation in negativity ratings may partly result from
the general way in which these strains are described, the
descriptions are no more general than those found in
most tests of GST. With limited exceptions, then, one
should not assume that objective strains are subjectivity
evaluated as quite negative by all or even most of the
people who experience them.
Agnew further argued that this variation in the
subjective reaction to objective strains is quite impor-
tant, since strains should be more strongly associated
with crime if they are rated as high in negativity. The
data reported in Table 2 allowed the authors to test this
argument. In particular, the crime measure was regressed
on the strain measures and the control variables. In one
set of regressions, reported in Column A, each of the four
strain measures was treated as a dummy variable—coded
“0” if the particular strain was not experienced in the past
two years and “1” if the strain was experienced. This
regression, then, does not take account of the respon-
dent's subjective evaluation of the four strains. The strain
measures can be viewed as “objective strains” - events
and conditions that are generally disliked, but are not
necessarily disliked by the specific people who have
experienced them. As can be seen, only one of the
objective strain measures, school failure, had a significant
positive relationship with crime. This effect is easily
explained in terms of several theories in addition to strain
theory, most notably social control theory. Low grades is
a common indicator of a weak investment in or a low
commitment to conventional society (Hirschi, 1969).
A second set of regressions, reported in Column B,
does take account of the negativity ratings of the
respondent. Each strain measure was converted into a
set of two dummy variables: a “low/mid negativity”
variable and a “high negativity” variable. For the “high
negativity” strain variables, respondents were coded “1”
if they rated the strain as high in negativity (6 or 7),
otherwise they were coded “0.” For the “low/mid
negativity” strain variables, respondents were coded
“1” if they rated the strain as low to moderate in nega-
tivity (1 through 5), otherwise they were coded “0.” Both
the “high negativity” and “low/negativity” dummy vari-
ables for each strain measure are in the regression,
meaning that the reference category for each strain
measure is those people who have not experienced the
strain. Regression results in Column B suggest that it is
sometimes important to take account of individuals'
subjective reactions to objective strains.
86 G. Froggio, R. Agnew / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 81–87

Table 2 associated with crime—although the breakup of impor-

Crime regressed on the four strains, with and without measures of tant friendships comes close to having a significant
negativity, and the control variables
relationship with crime when the breakup is high in
A B negativity. It is not clear why emotional distance from
b Beta b Beta parents is unrelated to crime. One possibility is that
STRAINS emotional distance from parents is less consequential
Emotional distance from parents .27 .02 among a sample of older adolescents who are in the
Low/mid negativity .15 .01 process of cutting ties to parents. Another is that the
High negativity .62 .02
individuals who report emotional distance as a problem
School failure 1.39 .10⁎⁎ are the ones who are more strongly tied to their parents.
Low/mid negativity .41 .02
High negativity 2.63 .13⁎ Conclusion
Romantic breakup .67 .07
These data provide some support for Agnew's
Low/mid negativity .49 .03
High negativity 1.02 .08⁎⁎ argument that it is important to distinguish between
objective and subjective strains. There is often much
Breakup of important friendship .14 .01 variation in the subjective evaluation of objective strains,
Low/mid negativity − .71 − .04 although the extent of such variation depends on the
High negativity .59 .05
strain being examined. Further, there is some evidence
CONTROLS that strains rated high in negatively are more likely to be
High-risk status 3.92 .36⁎ 3.99 .37⁎ associated with crime than those rated low in negativity.
(1 = high risk) These findings have important implications for both
Sex 1.23 .14⁎ 1.37 .16⁎ the past research on GST and future efforts to test the
(1 = male)
theory. As indicated, most research on GST has
Age .09 .07 .10 .07
Education − .75 − .07 − .70 −.07 employed objective measures of strains. The data from
(1 = attending/ finished college) this study suggested that such research might have
School status .93 .10⁎⁎ .85 .10⁎⁎ underestimated the impact of many strains on crime as a
(1 = nonstudent) result. This study also suggests that future research
Family status .33 .03 .22 .02
should attempt to measure both objective and subjective
(1 = living apart from family of
origin) strains. If such research also finds that many subjective
Father's education .67 .14⁎ .63 .13⁎ strains are more strongly related to crime, researchers
Low self-control 1.58 .16⁎ 1.54 .16⁎ should examine those factors that influence the subjec-
R2/N .300/411 .306/411 tive reaction to objective strains. One obvious factor that
may affect subjective reactions is the magnitude of the
Two of the four strain measures are associated with strain. Strains are more likely to be negatively evaluated
higher levels of crime, but only when these strains are if they are high in degree, frequent, recent, of long
subjectively rated as high in negativity. In particular, low duration, expected to continue into the future, and high in
grades are associated with significantly higher levels of “centrality” (see Agnew, 2006, pp. 58–61). Other factors
crime when such grades are rated as high in negativity, that may affect the subjective evaluation of strains, such
but not when they are rated as low to moderate in as characteristics of the individual and the individual's
negativity. This finding is easily explained in terms of social environment, were discussed earlier.
general strain theory, since strains should not generate It is, however, important to stress that this article
the negative emotions that contribute to crime unless the represents only a first step toward the better measure-
strains are high in negativity. This finding is less easily ment of strains. Ideally, researchers should not only
explained in terms of social control theory. If anything, measure objective and subjective strains, they should
social control theory would predict that delinquency will also consider the other dimensions of strains discussed
be highest among those who have low grades and do by Agnew (2001, 2006). In particular, they should
not care about these grades (see Hirschi, 1969, pp. 127, explore the extent to which strains are high in magnitude,
170–182). It is also the case that romantic breakups are perceived as unjust, associated with low control, easily
associated with crime only when they are high in nega- resolved through crime, and associated with the social
tivity. The breakup of important friendships and emo- learning of crime. Agnew (2001) describes how such
tional distance from parents are not significantly dimensions might be measured.
 G. Froggio, R. Agnew / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 81–87
In addition, it is important to emphasize that this
article only explored one part of GST, that having to do
with the effect of strains on crime. Future research should
also determine whether strains rated high in negativity
have a stronger effect on negative emotions, whether
negative emotions mediate the effect of such strains on
crime, and whether the effect of such strains on crime is
conditioned by the factors discussed by Agnew (1992,
2006).
These types of research, along with research dis-
tinguishing between objective and subjective strains,
will go a long way toward the refinement of general
strain theory and the more accurate prediction of
crime.
Notes
1. At the same time, Agnew (2001) argues that the experience of
certain events and conditions is likely to be subjectively evaluated in a
negative manner by almost all people. These “extreme stressors” are
such that they threaten a broad range of goals, values, needs, identities,
and activities. Examples include serious physical and sexual assaults.
2. It is unclear whether the respondent's criminal status should be
controlled. On the one hand, criminal status provides a measure of the
respondent's predisposition for crime and it may affect both the level
of strain and crime. On the other hand, criminal status may overlap
with the dependent variable: crime. Given this uncertainty, the
regressions were run without and without controls for criminal status.
Controlling for criminal status had little effect on the results for the
strain measures, so the regressions with controls for criminal status are
reported.
References
Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and
delinquency. Criminology, 30, 47−87.
Agnew, R. (2001). Building on the foundation of general strain theory:
Specifying the types of strain most likely to lead to crime and
delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38,
319−361.
Agnew, R. (2006). Pressured into crime: An overview of general
strain theory. Los Angeles: Roxbury.
Agnew, R., Brezina, T., Wright, J. P., & Cullen, F. T. (2002). Strain,
personality traits, and delinquency: Extending general strain
theory. Criminology, 40, 43−72.
Agnew, R., & White, H. R. (1992). An empirical test of general strain
theory. Criminology, 30, 475−499.
Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street. New York: W.W. Norton.
Bao, W., Haas, A., & Pi, Y. (2004). Life strain, negative emotions, and
delinquency: An empirical test of general strain theory in the
87
People's Republic of China. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 281−297.
Bernard, T. J. (1990). Angry aggression among the ‘truly disadvan-
taged.’ Criminology, 28, 73−96.
Broidy, L. (2001). Gender and crime: A general strain theory
perspective. Criminology, 39, 9−33.
Ciurla, A. (2001). Strategie di coping e prevenzione del disagio in
ambito scolastico: Indagine esplorativa in una scuola di Velletri.
Psicologia Giuridica, 2, 14−20.
Dohrenwend, B. P. (1998). Stress, adversity, and psychopathology.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursik, R. J., & Arneklev, B. J. (1993).
Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and
Hirschi's general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime
and Delinquency, 30, 5−29.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Kaplan, H. B. (1996). Psychosocial stress from the perspective of self
theory. In H. B. Kaplan (Ed.), Psycosocial stress. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Labos. (1994). La gioventù negata. Osservatorio sul disagio giovanile.
Rome: Tipografica Editrice Romana.
Landau, S. F. (1997). Crime patterns and their relation to subjective
social stress and support indicators: The role of gender. Journal of
Quantitative Criminology, 13, 29−56.
Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. New York:
Springer.
Marconi, N., & Cappa, M. M. (2001). Adolescenti e relazioni
interpersonali: I risultati di un'esperienza in una scuola media
superiore. Psicologia e Scuola, 22, 17−27.
Maxwell, S. R. (2001). A focus on familial strain: Antisocial behavior
and delinquency in Filipino society. Sociological Inquiry, 71,
265−292.
Moon, B. O., & Morash, M. (2004). Reformulation of theory for
alternative cultural contexts: Agnew's general strain theory in
South Korea. Journal of International and Comparative Criminal
Justice, 28, 77−104.
Palazzi, S., De Vito, E., Luzzati, D., Guerrini, A., & Torre, E. (1990).
A study on the relationship between life events and disturbed self
image in adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 13, 53−63.
Papini, M., Caterino, E., & Romoli, C. (2004). Adolescenti e scuola:
Disagio, fattori di rischio e depressione. Infanzia e Adolescenza:
Psicodinamica e Psicopatologia, 3, 24−35.
Sharp, S. F., Terling-Watt, T. L., Atkins, L. A., Gilliam, J. T., & Sanders,
A. (2001). Purging behavior in a sample of college females: A
research note on general strain theory. Deviant Behavior, 22,
171−188.
Valtancoli, A., Selvi, A., & Pazzagli, A. (1999). Disadattamento
adolescenziale: Fattori di rischio psicologici ed ambientali in una
prospettiva evolutiva. Uno studio empirico. Adolescenza, 10, 74−93.
Wheaton, B. (1990). Life transitions, role histories, and mental health.
American Sociological Review, 55, 209−224.
Wolfgang, M. E., & Ferracuti, F. (1982). The subculture of violence.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.