DEVIANCE THEORIESentire range of causal variables’’ (Liska, Krohn,
and Messner 1989, p. 4).
Because it combines the elements of different
theories, the new theory will have greater explana-
tory power than theories from which it was de-
rived. However, meaningful integration of devi-
ance theories will require much more than the
simple combination of variables. Scholars must
first reconcile the oppositional aspects of theories,
including many of their underlying assumptions
about society, the motivations of human behavior,
and the causes of deviant acts. For example, learn-
ing theories focus heavily on the motivations for
deviance, stressing the importance of beliefs and
values that ‘‘turn’’ the individual to deviant acts. In
contrast, control theories accord little importance
to such motivations, examining instead those as-
pects of the social environment that constrain
people from committing deviant acts. Reconciling
such differences is never an easy task, and in some
instances may be impossible (Hirschi 1979).
The problem of contradictory evidence sug-
gests a related but different direction for deviance
theory. Theories may vary significantly in the con-
ditions—termed scope conditions—under which they
apply (Walker and Cohen 1985; Tittle 1975; Tittle
and Curran 1988). Under some scope conditions,
theories may find extensive empirical support,
and under others virtually none. For instance,
macro-level origin theories concerned with the
frustrating effects of poverty on deviance may
have greater applicability to people living in dense-
ly populated urban areas than those living in rural
areas. The frustration of urban poverty may be
much more extreme than in rural areas, even
though the actual levels of poverty may be the
same. As a result, the frustrations of urban poverty
may be more likely to cause deviant adaptations in
the form of violent crime, drug abuse, and vice
than those of rural poverty. In this instance,
‘‘urbanness’’ may constitute a condition that acti-
vates strain theories linking poverty to deviance.
Obviously, the same theories simply may not apply
in rural areas or under other conditions.
Effective development of deviance theory will
require much greater attention to the specifica-
tion of such scope conditions. Rather than com-
bining causal variables from different theories as
integrationists would recommend, this approach
to theory development encourages scholars to
explore more fully the strengths and limitations of
their own theories. This approach will require
more complete elaboration of extant theory, ex-
plicitly specifying those circumstances under which
each theory may be meaningfully tested and thus
falsified. The result will be a greater specification
of each theory’s contribution to explanations of
deviant behavior.These two directions have clear and very dif-
ferent implications for the development of de-
viance theory. Theoretical integration offers
overarching models of deviant behavior that cut
across classical theories, combining different lev-
els of explanation and causal focuses. If funda-
mental differences between theories can be recon-
ciled, integration is promising. The specification
of scope conditions offers greater clarification of
existing theories, identifying those conditions un-
der which each theory most effectively applies.
Although this direction promises no general theo-
ries of deviance, it offers the hope of more mean-
ingful and useful explanations of deviant behavior.REFERENCES
Agnew, Robert 1992 ‘‘Foundation for a General Strain
Theory of Crime and Delinquency.’’ Criminology
30:47–88.
Akers, Ronald L. 1985 Deviant Behavior: A Social Learn-
ing Approach. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.
———, Marvin D. Krohn, Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, and
Marcia Radosevich 1979 ‘‘Social Learning and Devi-
ant Behavior: A Specific Test of a General Theory.’’
American Sociological Review 44:636–655.
Becker, Howard 1963 The Outsiders. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Blau, Judith, and Peter Blau 1982 ‘‘Metropolitan Struc-
ture and Violent Crime.’’ American Sociological Review
47:114–128.
Bridges, George S., and Robert D. Crutchfield 1988
‘‘Law, Social Standing and Racial Disparities in Im-
prisonment.’’ Social Forces 66:699–724.
———, and Edith Simpson 1987 ‘‘Crime, Social Struc-
ture and Criminal Punishment.’’ Social Problems
34:344–361.
———, and Sara Steen 1998 ‘‘Racial Disparities in Offi-
cial Assessments of Juvenile Offenders: Attributional
Stereotypes as Mediating Mechanisms.’’ American
Sociological Review 63:554–570.