Mathieu Deflem
Google Scholar | ResearchGate | ORCID
This paper is published in The Sage Encyclopedia of Crime and Gender, edited by Janet P. Stamatel. Sage Publications, September 2026.
Please cite as: Deflem, Mathieu. 2026. "Merton's Strain Theory." In The Sage Encyclopedia of Crime and Gender, edited by Janet P. Stamatel. Sage Publications.
Strain theory was developed by Robert K. Merton as part of a broader sociological perspective of anomie and social structure. The focus on strain in terms of deviant (and criminal) behavior was subsequently refined and extended. The perspective of Institutional Anomie Theory examines how the dominance of economic institutions shapes crime rates, while General Strain Theory extends the concept of strain to include a wider range of goals beyond economic pursuits. Variations in Mertonian strain theory have increasingly also reflected on the role of gender.
Strain and Anomie
Strain theory was developed by Robert K. Merton to formulate a sociological theory of deviant behavior at the aggregate level (Merton 1938, 1957). Merton differentiates between a society’s dominant cultural goals, on the one hand, and the legitimate means to achieve those goals, on the other. In the context of American society, he observed, an imbalance exists whereby the goals of achievement and individual success are emphasized to such an extent that considerations of the means to achieve them, especially by means of hard work, are de-legitimated. The resulting condition of a deinstitutionalization of societal norms Merton described as anomie, a societal state of a weakening of norms regarding the proper means towards success.
Merton describes various modes of adaptation to the condition of anomie. While the most common response is conformity, implying acceptance of both goals and means, other behavioral adaptations are deviant. These types of deviant behavior are: 1) Innovation: the success goal is accepted but the legitimate means are rejected in favor of other, illegitimate means of achievement; 2) Ritualism: societal goals and legitimate means are stubbornly held on to despite the fact that attainment of goals is out of reach; 3) Retreatism: both goals and means are rejected to part from society altogether; and 4) Rebellion: dominant goals and legitimate means are abandoned in favor of new goals and ways to achieve them.
The distribution of the different modes of adaption is not random across the population. Instead, Merton argues, the differentiation of society into various socio-economic strata is a critical factor in accounting for which type of behavioral adaptation is more or less likely in response to the general state of anomie. Although the goal of individual achievement and monetary success is widely shared, social strata differ in terms of their location in the opportunity structure of access to resources for achievement. Accounting for varying rates of deviant behavior, Merton argues that the greatest pressures towards deviant behavior exists in the lower socio-economic strata because legitimate means are there least available. At the same time, other strata may also experience unique pressures, specifically in order to achieve at unusually high levels of expectation. Merton phrased these pressures in terms of a strain that is experienced towards normlessness and deviant behavior.
Institutional Anomie and General Strain
Merton’s strain theory applies to specific types of deviant behavior in American society under conditions of anomie. Applied to the study of crime more broadly, Merton’s perspective has been refined and extended in at least two important respects, by Institutional Anomie Theory and General Strain Theory, respectively.
Institutional Anomie Theory (IAT), developed by Steven Messner and Richard Rosenfeld (2007), argues that a modern capitalist society like the United States prioritizes economic success over other important institutions, specifically family (to provide moral guidance and emotional support), education (to instill values beyond material success), and politics (to ensure fairness and social welfare). This condition of institutional anomie creates an environment in which criminal activity becomes more likely as a rational means to achieve success. While Merton’s theory focused on strains caused by the gap between cultural goals and legitimate means, IAT argues that strain, in the context of modern capitalist societies, pertains more broadly to an imbalance among social institutions whereby the economy is dominant. When economic success is prioritized, the influence of other social institutions weakens, leading to fewer social controls on deviant behavior. On a macro scale, IAT can thus explain why countries with a strong emphasis on capitalism and economic achievement have higher crime rates as compared to societies with stronger social institutions besides the economy.
Also extending from the framework of Merton’s theory, General Strain Theory (GST), developed by Robert Agnew (1992), considers multiple sources of strain and the social-psychological mechanisms leading to engage in various types of criminal activity. GST argues that strain or stress leads to negative emotions such as anger, frustration, and resentment. If such powerful negative emotions cannot be properly managed and contained, they increase the likelihood of criminal behavior. Three primary sources of strain are identified: positively valued goals can induce strain personal and social aspirations cannot be met; strain can be created following the loss of positively valued stimuli; and negative stimuli may exist in the form of undesirable social situations, generating feelings of resentment and hostility. Thus extending from Merton’s structural theory, GST brings in a social-psychological dimension that focuses on the role of negative emotions and the coping strategies to deal with them. Coping strategies can be constructively oriented at problem-solving, social support, and therapy, bit can also be destructive in the form of criminal activities.
Gender and Strain
Merton’s theory of strain and deviant behavior devotes no explicit attention to gender. The main reason for this omission, other than a historical neglect for the role of gender in sociology, is that his perspective applies to all who engage in any of the five modes of adaptation. Inasmuch as deviant behavior is concerned, however, it is clear that the theory implicitly applies mostly to men rather than women. This silent assumption on the relationship between gender and deviant behavior empirically rests on the fact that most forms of deviant behavior under conditions of anomie are committed by men. Especially during the days of Merton’s original theoretical formulations from the 1930s through the 1960s, the strains of achievement and monetary success primarily applied to men given their greater participation in the economic sphere. The conditions and consequences of the opportunity structure are in Merton’s perspective therefore not examined in terms of their potentially gendered nature.
A Mertonian perspective strain with an explicit gender focus is theoretically possible. Merton’s idea of strain could be applied to the structural condition of women historically facing obstacles to participate in education and employment, while men may experience high levels of strain because of their favorable standing in the socio-economic structure. In this light, the overrepresentation of men and the underrepresentation of women in deviant behavior appear as ironic consequences.
Moreover, a growing body of literature in the Mertonian framework has explicitly reflected on issues of gender in connection with deviant and criminal behavior. Institutional Anomie Theory recognizes that gender plays a crucial role in how institutional anomie exerts its influences on crime (Applin & Messner, 2015). In societies where economic success is the dominant goal, men face greater strains to achieve financial success due to traditional gender roles tied with masculinity and economic achievement. Women, on the other hand, historically experience different social expectations that emphasize caregiving, family roles, and moral responsibility rather than financial achievement. As a result, women may experience less strain related to economic success and, consequently, have lower crime rates than men. The impact of the weakening of non-economic institutions on social controls also has gendered effects. Specifically, for men, the decline of family influence and weakening of moral constraints may lead to higher crime rates, as economic pressure becomes the primary driver of behavior. By contrast, as women tend to be (and remain) more embedded in non-economic institutions, they may be able to rely on support structures (such as family and friends) rather than resort to criminal activity, even when they face economic pressures. Women experiencing strain from institutional anomie are also more likely to engage in self-destructive behavior, such as substance abuse and self-harm, rather than violence against others.
General Strain Theory can also account for the fact that men generally engage in criminal activities much more than women do because of the gendered manner in which different types of strain are responded to (Broidy & Agnew, 1997). The strains most typically experienced by men are more likely to be goal-related and economic in nature, especially inasmuch as masculinity is associated with economic performance, leading to a sense of frustration that is responded to with criminal means. Responses to strain more typical for men will involve externalizing behaviors such as violence, alcohol and drug abuse, and forms of criminal behavior, such as theft and fraud, that are seen as means to achieve financial success. By contrast, women experience more interpersonal strains such as domestic abuse and victimization in intimate partner violence, sexual harassment, and emotional abuse. Women are more likely to face special caretaking burdens that can produce emotional stress as a result of strains to balance work demands and family expectations. In matters of relationship conflicts, women are more likely to internalize strains resulting from relationship issues, contributing to depression and anxiety, self-harm, and non-violent and less instrumental crimes such as drug abuse and shoplifting.
Research has revealed considerable evidence for the role of strain in accounting for gendered differences in crime. While strains can affect both men and women, research has shown that the experience thereof is gendered in both emotional and behavioral ways (Kaufman, 2009). Since the 2010s, researchers have also been sensitive to measuring gender identity rather than biological sex as a predictor of criminal behavior (Dolliver & Rocker, 2018). Also examined have been the intersection of gender with other categories of identity and self, especially race (Scheuerman, 2019). Feminist scholars, finally, have related strain to pressures resulting from a culture of masculinity (Scaptura, et al., 2024).
In sum, theory and research in the Mertonian tradition has made important advances in recognizing the role of gender in relation to anomie, strain, and deviant and criminal behavior. The role of gender in traditional Mertonian strain theory can be explicated in terms of its implied emphasis on deviant behavior among men, which are and remain overrepresented in many forms of deviance and crime. Institutional Anomie Theory can further help explain why men are more likely to commit crime than women by showing how economic pressure, social expectations, and access to criminal opportunities are structured by gender. At the social-psychological level, General Strain Theory can account for the fact that men are more likely to experience economic and peer-related strains, leading to externalizing behaviors, such as violence and crime in general, while women more frequently experience interpersonal and victimization-related strains and tend to engage in internalizing behaviors, such as anxiety, depression, or self-harm.
An important question for future research is to examine if gender differences will persist or if they will decrease as a result of increasing gender equality. The next issue is then to research how these trends can be accounted for with the perspective of Mertonian strain theory and its variants. Furthermore, studies on the intersectionality of gender with other social categories, such as race and socioeconomic status, can be augmented with insights from anomie and strain to offer a more comprehensive understanding of the factors contributing to deviant and criminal behavior.
See also: Durkheim’s Anomie Theory; Feminist Theories; General Strain Theory; Institutional Anomie Theory; Masculinity Theories; Social Control Theory
Further Readings
Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30, 47–87.
Applin, S., & Messner, S. F. (2015). Her American dream: Bringing gender into institutional-anomie theory. Feminist Criminology, 10(1), 36–59.
Broidy, L., & Agnew, R. (1997). Gender and crime: A general strain theory perspective. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34(3), 275–306.
Dolliver, M. J., & Rocker, D. L. (2018). Addressing a divide in the conceptualization of the gender-crime relationship: A comparative test of gender and sex using general strain theory. Deviant Behavior, 39(12), 1552–1565.
Kaufman, J. M. (2009). Gendered responses to serious strain: The argument for a general strain theory of deviance. Justice Quarterly, 26(3), 410–444.
Merton, R.K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 672–682.
Merton, R.K. (1957). Social structure and anomie. In R.K. Merton, Social theory and social structure (Rev. & enlarged ed., pp. 131–160). The Free Press.
Messner, S.F., & Rosenfeld, R. (2007). Crime and the American dream (4th ed.). Thomson/Wadsworth.
Scaptura, M.N., Boyle, K. M., & Rogers, K. B. (2024). Subordination to women, anger, and endorsement of violence against women: A test of general strain theory. Feminist Criminology, published online August 19, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1177/15570851241274863
Scheuerman, H. L. (2019). Intersectionality and crime: An exploratory look at how gender and race influence responses to injustice associated with strain. Deviant Behavior, 40(11), 1349–1371.
