Merton’s Strain Theory of Deviance in Sociology

On This Page:

Merton’s Strain Theory says people turn to deviance when society pushes them to achieve big goals, like wealth or success, but blocks their access to fair and legal ways of getting there. This mismatch, called strain, can lead to rule-breaking. Merton identified five ways people respond: conforming, innovating, ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion. It’s a key way to understand how inequality fuels crime

Key Takeaways

Theory: Merton’s Strain Theory explains how a gap between society’s goals and the means available to achieve them can lead to deviant behavior. It builds on Durkheim’s concept of anomie, or normlessness.
Strain: Social structures may create pressure by promoting success ideals, like the “American Dream,” while limiting access to legitimate opportunities for many people.
Adaptations: People respond to strain in five ways—conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion—each reflecting different attitudes toward goals and means.
Critique: The theory has been criticized for focusing mainly on lower-class crime and overlooking the roles of power, privilege, race, and gender in shaping deviance.
Relevance: Strain Theory remains useful for understanding links between inequality, social pressures, and crime rates in contemporary societies.

Strain Theory

Strain Theory is a sociological explanation for why some people commit crimes or break rules.

It was developed by Robert K. Merton in the 1930s and is still discussed in criminology and sociology classes today.

The Core Idea

Societies encourage people to aim for certain goals, such as financial prosperity, career achievement, educational attainment, home ownership, and social status.

These goals are often promoted through institutions like schools, the media, and government policies, creating shared expectations for what a “successful” life looks like.

In the United States, one of the most famous examples is the American Dream — the idea that anyone can become rich, successful, and respected if they work hard.

Society not only defines these goals but also promotes certain legitimate or approved methods for achieving them:

such as gaining an education,
getting a job,
working hard and saving money,
and advancing through recognised career paths.

Strain theory predicts that deviance is likely to happen when there is a misalignment between the cultural goals of a society (such as monetary wealth) and the opportunities people have to obtain them.

Examples of Cultural Goals

1. Financial Prosperity

Blocked Means: A person works full-time in a low-wage job but still can’t cover basic living costs due to low pay and rising prices.
Strain: Frustration at being unable to achieve financial stability despite hard work may push them toward theft, fraud, or illegal side hustles.

2. Career Achievement

Blocked Means: A qualified worker faces discrimination that prevents promotion to higher positions.
Strain: Feeling unfairly held back may lead them to cut ethical corners, falsify records, or start an unlicensed side business.

3. Educational Attainment

Blocked Means: A student from a low-income family can’t afford university fees or lacks access to good schools.
Strain: The inability to compete for higher-status jobs may increase the temptation to cheat, lie about qualifications, or engage in illicit work.

4. Home Ownership

Blocked Means: Even after years of saving, rising property prices make buying a home impossible.
Strain: This gap between the goal and reality can lead to illegal money-making schemes or housing fraud.

5. Social Status

Blocked Means: A newcomer to a community is excluded from influential networks due to class or ethnicity.
Strain: The desire for respect and influence might lead to involvement in gangs, bribery, or other deviant networks that offer alternative status.

6. Material Possessions

Blocked Means: A young adult sees peers with designer clothes and new gadgets but can’t afford them.
Strain: This social pressure may lead to shoplifting, counterfeiting, or online scams.

7. Personal Independence

Blocked Means: A disabled individual faces workplace barriers that limit their ability to earn enough to live independently.
Strain: Dependence on others may cause resentment and, in some cases, motivate participation in benefit fraud or unreported income.

The Five Ways People Respond to Strain

Merton described five common responses to this kind of strain.

Each reflects a different combination of accepting or rejecting the cultural goals and the approved means of achieving them.

1. Conformity – Accept goals + accept means

Conformists agree with society’s goals (e.g., financial success, career achievement) and follow legitimate, socially approved methods to reach them, even if opportunities are limited.

They persist despite obstacles, often relying on education, legal employment, and perseverance.

Example: A student works hard in school, applies for jobs, and continues to pursue a professional career despite facing a competitive job market and economic downturn.

2. Innovation – Accept goals + reject means

Innovators still aim for society’s goals but use unapproved or illegal means to achieve them.

This adaptation is often linked to crime because individuals bypass legitimate channels when those channels seem blocked or insufficient.

Example: An underemployed person sells drugs or engages in fraud to make money because legal jobs don’t pay enough to meet financial aspirations.

3. Ritualism – Reject goals + accept means

Ritualists abandon society’s high-value goals, such as wealth or status, but continue to follow the approved rules and routines.

Their focus shifts to security and routine rather than ambition.

Example: A long-term employee stays in a low-paying clerical job without seeking promotion, simply maintaining the daily work pattern without pursuing career advancement.

4. Retreatism – Reject goals + reject means

Retreatists reject both the goals society values and the legitimate ways of achieving them, effectively “dropping out” of conventional life.

This often involves social withdrawal or self-destructive behaviours.

Example: An individual leaves school, avoids work, and disengages from mainstream society, possibly turning to substance abuse or living in isolation.

5. Rebellion – Replace goals + replace means

Rebels reject existing cultural goals and means but go further by substituting them with new visions and strategies.

They seek to change the social system, often challenging authority and existing institutions.

Example: A radical political movement rejects the goal of wealth accumulation, instead advocating for collective ownership, and pursues it through protests, civil disobedience, or revolutionary action.

Why Strain Theory Matters

Strain Theory is important because it shifts the conversation from “Why are some people bad?” to “What social conditions make rule-breaking more likely?”

It suggests that crime is not just about individual choice — it can be a response to the structure of society.

For example:

If a society heavily promotes material success but doesn’t provide fair opportunities, some people might turn to theft or fraud.
If someone grows up in a neighborhood with poor schools and few job prospects, the “legitimate path” may seem unrealistic.

This doesn’t mean everyone who faces strain will break the rules.

Many people still choose legal paths, even in difficult situations. But it helps explain patterns in crime rates and why certain social changes — like recessions or job losses — can affect them.

How does social structure and inequality influence deviance?

The problem is that not everyone has an equal chance to succeed through these legitimate means.

Social inequality can create situations where people experience tension (or strain) between the goals society says they should be working toward and the legitimate means they have available to meet those goals.

Poverty, discrimination, poor-quality schools, or lack of jobs can make it much harder for some people to reach the goals society values.

How Social Structure and Inequality Influence Deviance

Sociologists argue that deviance — behaviours that break social norms or laws — cannot be fully understood without looking at the structure of society and the inequalities within it.

Social structure refers to the organised patterns of relationships and institutions (such as the economy, education system, and family) that shape people’s opportunities and constraints.

Inequality refers to the unequal distribution of resources, opportunities, and power among individuals and groups. Together, these factors can influence who is more likely to engage in deviant behaviour and why.

Unequal Access to Goals and Means

In many societies, there are widely shared cultural goals, such as wealth, success, and social status.

However, access to the legitimate means of achieving these goals — like quality education, well-paying jobs, or business opportunities — is not evenly distributed.

People in disadvantaged positions may experience a “strain” between what society tells them they should achieve and what is realistically possible for them through approved channels.

This is the core of Robert Merton’s Strain Theory, which predicts that when legitimate opportunities are blocked, some individuals may turn to deviant or illegal methods to achieve the same ends.

Concentration of Disadvantage

Inequality often concentrates poverty, unemployment, and social disorganisation in particular areas or communities.

These environments may have fewer social supports, higher crime rates, and weaker institutions for enforcing norms.

As a result, residents may be more exposed to deviant role models or subcultures that normalise illegal behaviour.

This supports theories like Social Disorganisation Theory, which links neighbourhood conditions to crime rates.

Power and Privilege

Inequality also affects how deviance is defined and enforced.

Those with more social power can shape laws and norms to protect their interests, and they may have more resources to avoid punishment when they break rules.

This means white-collar or corporate crimes committed by the wealthy may be under-policed compared to street crimes often associated with poorer populations.

Conflict theory highlights how the justice system can reflect and reinforce existing social hierarchies.

General Strain Theory (Agnew)

In the 1990s, sociologist Robert Agnew expanded on Merton’s Strain Theory to create what is known as General Strain Theory (GST).

While Merton’s original model focused mainly on the frustration caused by being unable to achieve socially valued goals (like wealth or status) through legitimate means, Agnew argued that strain can come from a much wider range of negative experiences.

Agnew identified three main types of strain that can push people toward deviance or crime:

Failure to achieve goals – This is similar to Merton’s focus but includes any blocked personal ambitions, such as not being able to get a promotion, make a sports team, or achieve academic success.
Loss of positive stimuli – Losing something valuable or important can create strain. Examples include the end of a relationship, the death of a loved one, losing a job, or having prized possessions stolen.
Presentation of negative stimuli – Being exposed to unpleasant or harmful situations can cause strain. This might include bullying at school, emotional or physical abuse, discrimination, chronic conflict, or living in a dangerous environment.

Examples

Many sociologists have examined which types of strain are most likely to lead to criminal behaviour (e.g., Arter, 2008; Baron & Hartnagel, 1997; Ellwanger, 2007). Drawing on this research, Agnew (2002) identified several high-risk strains:

Familial: Parental rejection, child abuse or neglect, marital conflict, and the use of humiliation, threats, shouting, or physical punishment.
School: Poor academic performance, hostile or unsupportive relationships with teachers, bullying, and other abusive peer interactions.
Loss of social status: Sudden demotion at work, public humiliation, or social shaming (including online).
Economic: Jobs involving unpleasant tasks, little autonomy, low pay, low prestige, or limited promotion opportunities; unemployment; homelessness (which often combines financial desperation with frequent conflict and victimisation); living in disadvantaged urban areas.
Victimisation: Experiencing personal harm or loss as the victim of a crime.
Discrimination: Being targeted or marginalised based on race, gender, religion, or other social identities.

These forms of strain are considered especially significant because they combine personal hardship with emotional distress, creating conditions where deviance may appear to be a viable coping strategy.

Strain and Emotions

Agnew emphasised that strain is not just about the situation — it’s about the emotional reaction it creates.

Strain often leads to negative emotions, such as:

Anger – Can create a desire for revenge or to “even the score.”
Frustration – Can push people to seek quick solutions, even illegal ones.
Depression or hopelessness – May lead to withdrawal from society or substance abuse.

These emotions increase the likelihood of deviance because they put pressure on individuals to find a way to reduce their distress.

Coping and Crime

According to General Strain Theory, whether strain leads to crime depends on a person’s coping resources:

People with healthy coping strategies — such as problem-solving skills, supportive friends and family, or access to counselling — are less likely to break the law.
People with limited coping options may see crime as their best or only way to manage the situation. This could include theft to solve financial problems, violence to retaliate against bullying, or drug use to escape emotional pain.

Why GST Matters

General Strain Theory broadens the scope of strain theory, showing that deviance can result from a variety of life stresses — not just economic barriers.

It also highlights the importance of social support, fair treatment, and emotional coping skills in preventing crime.

In short, Agnew’s work helps explain how everyday frustrations and life crises can, under the wrong conditions, push people toward breaking the rules.

Criticisms of Strain Theory

1. A key criticism of Merton’s Strain Theory is that it focuses too heavily on working-class crime while neglecting deviance among the wealthy and powerful.

Merton’s model largely assumes that crime results from blocked access to material success, a problem he associated with lower socio-economic groups.

However, white-collar crime, corporate fraud, and political corruption are committed by individuals who already have access to legitimate opportunities. These crimes are not easily explained by a simple gap between goals and means.

This means the theory offers an incomplete explanation of deviance, as it underplays the role of power, privilege, and greed in shaping criminal behavior. Its class bias reduces its ability to explain all forms of crime, making it less applicable to understanding high-status offenders.

2. Merton’s Strain Theory has been criticised for its cultural bias, assuming that everyone in the United States shares the same materialistic goals.

The theory is rooted in the idea of the “American Dream” as a universal aspiration.

In reality, people have diverse goals, such as valuing community service, personal happiness, or spiritual fulfilment over material success.

Evidence from subcultures and alternative lifestyles suggests that not all individuals measure success in terms of wealth or career status.

By assuming universal goals, the theory risks oversimplifying human motivation and overlooking crimes committed for reasons unrelated to material success.

This limits its cross-cultural validity and applicability outside societies with a strong materialist ethic.

3. Empirical support for Merton’s original theory is inconsistent.

Some research supports the idea that a gap between aspirations and means can increase crime rates, but other studies find that individuals with low aspirations and low expectations commit more crime than those with high aspirations.

Additionally, longitudinal studies have not consistently confirmed that strain directly predicts criminal behavior.

This inconsistency weakens confidence in the theory’s predictive power, suggesting that other factors — such as peer influence, opportunity, or personality traits — may play a more significant role in explaining deviance.

General Strain Theory (GST) improves on Merton’s model by recognising a wider range of strains, including loss of valued relationships and exposure to harmful experiences.

Robert Agnew’s GST acknowledges that negative life events, such as bullying, abuse, or discrimination, can create frustration and anger that may lead to crime.

This broadens the theory beyond purely economic strain and incorporates emotional responses.

Research has found that strains linked to negative emotions, particularly anger, are more likely to result in criminal coping.

This expansion makes GST more relevant to modern criminology, as it can explain crimes motivated by interpersonal conflict, retaliation, or emotional distress — areas Merton’s original theory could not fully address.

Reading List

Core Sources

Merton, R.K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672–682.
Merton, R.K. (1949). Social structure and anomie: revisions and extensions. In R.N. Anshen (Ed.), The Family: Its Functions and Destiny (pp. 226–257). Harper.
Merton, R.K. (1957). Social structure and anomie. In R.K. Merton (Ed.), Social Theory and Social Structure (pp. 185–214). The Free Press.
Merton, R.K. (1957). Continuities in the theory of social structure and anomie. In R.K. Merton (Ed.), Social Theory and Social Structure (pp. 215–248). The Free Press.

Key Developments & Extensions

Agnew, R. (1985). A revised strain theory of delinquency. Social Forces, 64(1), 151-167.
Agnew, R. (2002). Experienced, vicarious, and anticipated strain: An exploratory study on physical victimization and delinquency. Justice Quarterly, 19(4), 603-632.
Agnew, R., & Brezina, T. (2019). General Strain Theory. In M.D. Krohn et al. (Eds.), Handbook on Crime and Deviance (pp. 145-160). Springer.
Messner, S.F., & Rosenfeld, R. (2012). Crime and the American Dream. Cengage Learning.

Empirical Research & Applications

Agnew, R., Cullen, F.T., Burton Jr, V.S., Evans, T.D., & Dunaway, R.G. (1996). A new test of classic strain theory. Justice Quarterly, 13(4), 681-704.
Hay, C., & Meldrum, R. (2010). Bullying Victimization and Adolescent Self-Harm: Testing Hypotheses from General Strain Theory. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(5), 446-459.
Langton, L., & Piquero, N.L. (2007). Can general strain theory explain white-collar crime? Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(1), 1-15.

Critiques & Alternative Perspectives

Hirschi, T., & Stark, R. (1969). Hellfire and delinquency. Social Problems, 17(2), 202-213.
Johnson, R.E., & Johnson, E.E. (1979). Juvenile delinquency and its origins. CUP Archive.
Kornhauser, R.R. (1978). Social sources of delinquency.
Taylor, I., Walton, P., & Young, J. (1973). The New Criminology.