Deviance and Gender

Abstract

Early studies on deviance largely ignored the intersections of deviance and gender in society. However, recent researchers have been able to better understand and define deviance by examining the points where deviance and gender converge. Although theories regarding social deviance have been generated for decades, it is only recently that theorists have begun to explore the intersections between deviance, crime and gender. This article describes the tenets of Control Balance Theory, Self Control Theory, Differential Association Theory (as described in Social Learning Theory), and Strain Theory and examines these theories using a gender specific lens.

Overview

By definition, deviance is any action or activity that differs from accepted social standards or what society deems to be normal (Webster's New World College Dictionary, 2001). Early studies on deviance largely ignored the intersections of deviance and gender in society. However, recent researchers have been able to better understand and define deviance by examining the points where deviance and gender converge.

Upon hearing the phrase "deviant behavior," most people immediately think of criminals. And when speaking of criminals, most people will envision males as the criminals. In fact, males are more often found to be involved in criminal behavior than females. For research purposes, criminality is often divided into various categories, such as violent crimes, substance-abuse crimes, and property crimes, all of which tend to be dominated by males (Baron, 2003). Yet a lot of non-criminal behaviors are also, by definition, deviant, while others were considered deviant in the past and are now considered to be acceptable behavior. Defiant behavior, rebellious behavior, causing harm to oneself, and acting outside of roles assigned by society are all considered to be deviant behavior. Due to its location in social attitudes and practices, the definition of deviance changes as society evolves. For example, women who chose to exert themselves in an effort to preserve their constitutional rights were considered to be social deviants from the inception of the United States until the early twentieth century (Kerber, 2000). As society changed and accepted women's claims to personal rights and freedoms, the definition of deviance slowly began to exclude these women.

Today what is considered to be deviant behavior continues to evolve. Consider how views of lesbian and gay sexuality have changed over the past decades. Once considered deviant behavior by the majority of people and the American Psychological Association (APA), homosexuality is now viewed as an innate trait and accepted by many people in society, and the APA has dropped it from its diagnostic manual (Cummings, 2006). The evolving nature of what is considered to be deviant makes deviance a bit difficult to understand from a sociological perspective. However, understanding deviance and its impacts on people within a society helps to inform how people deal with the roles imposed on them by society and how society works to maintain these social roles. Hence, many theories of deviance have been developed, and many researchers have examined the differences in perceived deviance in males and females. Some of the more prevalent theories here discussed are control balance theory, self-control theory, differential association theory, and strain theory,

Applications

Control Balance Theory. This theory, devised by Charles Tittle (1995), claims that the types of deviance in which one engages are based on a control ratio (i.e., the amount of control that one is under versus the amount of control one commands). Control is placed along a gradient line, with too little control (i.e., a control deficit) to the left of center and too much control (i.e., a control surplus) to the right. It is only when achieving a balance in the center of this gradient that a person will be motivated to conform to social conventions. Tittle hypothesized that when deviance is examined along lines of gender, most females will be subjected to constraints in their ability to exercise control and will most likely violate social conventions via predation or defiance. Conversely, males will more often experience an excess of control and will most likely violate social conventions via predation or exploitation (Tittle, 1995; Hickman & Piquero, 2001). In other words, because women are relegated to social positions in which they are forced into a role of submission relative to males, they are more likely to violate social conventions by defying the structures that control them or by manipulating the structures to get what they want. Men, who are located in social positions that largely afford them control or dominance, are more likely to manipulate the social structure or engage in the outright exploitation of others to get what they want. Figure 1 illustrates this hypothesis.

Control balance theorists believe deviance will occur when all three of the following factors are present:

• The person is motivated toward deviance by virtue of temperament or situational circumstances,
• Constraint (i.e., the risk of being caught or punished) is perceived as low, and
• Opportunity is present.

If one of these factors is absent, the deviance is less likely to occur. This theory clearly reveals the convergence of deviance and gender by taking into account the differences in how females and males are socialized in society. Females are generally socialized to care for others, consider the needs of the group as opposed to the individual, and provide support and maintenance for the social group. Males are generally socialized to occupy a position of dominance and privilege in which competition and acquisition of material goods are valued. Though this position provides greater motivation for males to conform, thus maintaining the status quo, it also moves them to commit acts of deviance that are more often categorized as criminal activity within the society (Beutel & Marini, 1995).

Self-Control Theory. This theory purports to have identified one of the major causes of deviant behavior. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) hypothesize that the amount of self-control one has is predictive of how likely one will engage in socially deviant behavior (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). They suggest that people who are "insensitive, physical (as opposed to mental), risk-taking, shortsighted, and nonverbal" (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990, p. 90) will have less self-control than other people in the general population. Intuitively, this makes sense. A person with low self-control would seem more likely to break a law or engage in behavior that is exciting or gratifying without a thought of future consequences.

Self-control theorists suggest that propensity for self-control is established during childhood, is correlated to the quality of child rearing practiced by parents, and is unlikely to change much during one's lifetime. They also claim that parents must exert strong influence over a child's level of self-control by setting and adhering to strict behavioral expectations until the child is eight years old (Unnever, Cullen, & Pratt, 2003). An adult with low levels of self-control will have difficulty refraining from temptations that arise when working to create long-term personal or working relationships within a societal structure. People with low self-control will not have the fortitude to pass up opportunities to cheat on spouses, lie for personal gain, steal from work, or execute other breaches of the social contract.

This theory has been challenged and tested several times in the past decades and remains a valid predictor of social deviance (Pratt & Cullen, 2000; Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, & Arneklev, 1993; Hay, 2001). A few studies have indicated gender to be a significant, indirect factor correlated with criminal and delinquent behavior (Unnever, Cullen, & Pratt, 2003; Tittle, Ward, & Grasmick, 2003). It is suggested that parents are more attentive and controlling of their daughters' behaviors due to their more vulnerable position in society, supporting the finding that females are involved in fewer criminal offenses while manifesting similar levels of self-control as boys (Tittle, Ward, & Grasmick, 2003; Gibbs, Giever, & Martin, 1998; LaGrange & Silverman, 1999). Notably, these studies focused more on criminal behaviors than other types of socially deviant behaviors (e.g., smoking, eating disorders, alternative lifestyles, etc.). It has been noted in the literature that people reporting low self-control tend to form friendship groups with similar people, with whom they tend to engage in deviant behaviors as a group (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). This observation led to the development of the differential association theory, which argues that deviance is a product of socialization (i.e., social learning) and group association.

Differential Association Theory. Older people always have a saying that helps describe what they have learned from life experience, such as "Birds of a feather flock together," meaning people who are similar will hang out with each other. That is the gist of the differential association theory, except in reverse: according to the theory, people tend to adopt the behaviors of the group, rather than deviant people seeking out groups who are deviant. This is more a case of peer influence than one of peer pressure. People who hang out with each other will come to adopt the attitudes and behaviors of those with whom they associate; social deviance is learned from direct and indirect association with one's friends (Akers & Lee, 1996; Sutherland, 1940). In other words, one will adopt the deviant attitudes and behaviors displayed by the majority of one's friends, and this adoption will usually begin with forms of mild experimentation that are rewarded and encouraged by the peer group. Once mild forms of deviance have been noticed by other groups, those groups will come to exclude the person exhibiting the deviance from further membership, leaving that person largely associating with the original group.

Unfortunately, the "learning" referred to in social learning theories, of which differential association is one, often means that the person is being excluded from groups who find the deviant behavior unacceptable. Instead of learning more socially accepted behaviors, the deviant person will be forced to seek out peers who manifest similar behaviors (Akers & Lee, 1996). People will seek out friendship groups whose members generally agree on what is deemed to be fun, acceptable behavior. Intellectually gifted students will join clubs that honor and value their talents, while religious students seek out groups that study and value religion. Adventure seekers will locate themselves in a group of friends who skateboard, snowboard, and surf, while emo kids will hang out and listen to their own brand of alternative music while discussing who is into cutting.

Once a person has found a group based on certain interests and proclivities, the group will help socialize that person to the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors its members believe to be normal or comfortable while providing opportunities to experiment with and refine their participation in those behaviors. It is in this way that a person with tendencies toward deviant behaviors will become involved in a group with similar interests and attributes and will come to adopt the attitude of the group majority. A deviant peer group is likely to encourage similar deviant and criminal behaviors within the group while seeking opportunities to exhibit those behaviors (Evans, Cullen, Burton, Dunaway, & Benson, 1997).

Males tend to gravitate toward the development of large groups that are governed by physical and competitive interactions. Females tend to interact in smaller groups that are organized around cooperation and relationship maintenance. This difference in associative preference tends to provide more opportunity and support for deviant and criminal behavior in males (Broidy & Agnew, 1997). Additionally, females are more likely to adopt the deviant behaviors of their love interests than are males. Some critics of this theory disagree that people with similar attributes and interests will find each other and form a self-supporting social group. They suggest that the groups are actually imposed on people via the social barriers in place within the society. These opponents call this competing theory the strain theory.

Strain Theory: Classic & General. Based on Emile Durkheim's "anomie" and developed by Robert Merton, classic strain theory predicts that people who have high long-term aspirations coupled with low long-term economic expectations will be most likely to engage in criminal and deviant behavior as they attempt to beat the odds society has imposed on them (Merton, 1938). These theorists believe that much of crime and social deviance is directly or indirectly related to social class, more specifically the strain of being a member of a lower social class. However, this theory was not easily validated because many of the people included in strain studies were not manifesting deviant or criminal behaviors and women were dismissively regarded as being insulated against the effects of strain due to their positioning in the social structure (Broidy & Agnew, 1997).

Subsequent theorists realized that strain cannot be simply measured by absolute deprivation (i.e., level of poverty) but must also be examined from the perspective of the person's perception of the gap between expectations and reality and his or her reactions to strain. Studies began to suggest that strain did indeed contribute to criminal and deviant behavior (Pratt & Cullen, 2000). Agnew (2001) revised classic strain theory to create general strain theory, extending the theory to allow researchers to further explore the factors that influence how a person reacts to strain. These new factors add the loss of positive stimuli (jobs, friends, romantic partners, etc.) and the acquisition of negative stimuli (excessive demands, stress, all types of abuse, etc.) to the original strain of failing to achieve aspirations and goals (Broidy & Agnew, 1997).

Once the theory was extended, researchers were better able to identify and measure strain unique to females, such as abortion, sexual abuse, unjust treatment based on gender, burdens associated with private-realm responsibilities, et cetera, and to examine both objective and subjective levels of strain. Evidence suggests that females are subjected to as much or more strain than males, negating the assertion that the level of strain correlates positively with commission of crimes. Related research suggests that the differences between how males and females experience the world will predict whether strain will correlate with deviant/criminal behaviors. Men are more focused on fairness in outcomes, while females are more focused on fairness in the process that results in the outcome (Broidy & Agnew, 1997). Recent research in general strain theory suggests that it is one's emotional response to strain that is the true predictor of criminal behavior.

Anger is the driving emotion that leads to crime; anger lowers inhibitions, moves a person toward action, and increases individual energy (Broidy & Agnew, 1997; Sharp, Brewster, & Love, 2005). Anger is acknowledged to be both situational and trait-based. While situational anger is a robust predictor of shoplifting and assault, trait-based anger only predicts assault. Researchers assert that all people experience similar levels of anger. However, differences between how females and males are socialized account for their different responses to anger (Sharp, Brewster, & Love, 2005). Given this assumption, it follows that criminal acts are more prevalent in males due to their learned responses to strain: they have been taught that it is okay to be angry. Females are taught that their anger is less appropriate, and less effective, than men's. They tend to turn their anger inward, resulting in depression or guilt, thus reducing non-criminal activities but resulting in more covert types of deviant behavior, such as eating disorders, drug abuse, and ignoring or reframing problems (Sharp, Brewster, & Love, 2005; Broidy & Agnew, 1997).

Viewpoints

In 1969, a well-respected psychologist, Lawrence Kohlberg, was deeply involved in research that described moral development. His research suggested that personal morality involves a complex mix of how stringently a person is willing to follow societal conventions and how willing that person is to defy those conventions when faced with a situation in which one must choose between upholding conventions or upholding a personal respect for human life and welfare. Kohlberg's research outcomes suggested that adult females remained morally immature throughout their lives; based on his operationalized definition of morality, only men tended to reach the pinnacle of morality. His lab assistant, Carol Gilligan, criticized his work heavily, noting that based on their place of relative oppression within American society, women were not morally deficit. Indeed, these women developed a morality that was firmly grounded in care for the ongoing needs of society (i.e., sacrificing the good of the individual in favor of society), which differed from Kohlberg's biased analysis. Kohlberg believed the pinnacle of moral behavior was reached when a person was able to value the needs of the individual over the general benefit of society (Gilligan, 1982).

In this debate lies the seed of how females and males may be socialized in ways that differ, creating differing levels of potential deviance. It is also an important example of how personal perspective can introduce bias into research and theories. Studies on deviance and crime often have biases based on gender, race, socioeconomic status, and class. Crime, for instance, is usually regarded as acts for which one is prosecuted and sent to jail. This definition precludes the examination of what is typically referred to as white-collar crime. In reality, crimes are committed by many people in the upper class, but these crimes are prosecuted in civil courts or are handled by administrative boards or commissions (Sutherland, 1940). However, these activities are still crimes and should be carefully considered as such when one is determining whether a theory can be generalized to all types of deviant behavior.

Terms & Concepts

Control Ratio: The amount of power one has to limit other people's realization of their goals or to escape external limitations of one's own goals versus the extent to which one is subject to real and potential goal limitations by others (Hickman & Piquero, 2001).

Defiance: Deviant acts that reject societal norms in an effort to avoid the infliction of serious harms (e.g., political protest, vandalism, etc.) without providing apparent benefits to the actor (Hickman & Piquero, 2001).

Deviance: Any action or activity that differs from accepted social standards or what society deems to be normal (Webster's New World College Dictionary, 2001).

Exploitation: The act of using other people or organizations to coerce, manipulate, or extract property from others, creating personal benefit while disregarding the desires or well-being of the exploited (Hickman & Piquero, 2001).

Operationalize: To define abstract concepts in concrete ways so that they can be more easily measured.

Oppression: The empowering or privileging of one group at the expense of another.

Predation: Deviant acts that include direct physical violence, manipulation, or acquisition of property to provide apparent benefits to the actor. Predation includes harm against both self and others (Hickman & Piquero, 2001).

Social Convention: Behaviors and customs generally accepted by a society or conforming to a larger set of rules, whether written or unwritten.

Bibliography

Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30, 47–87. Retrieved April 2, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com /login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9203301138&site=ehost-live.

Akers, R. L., & Lee, G. (1996). A longitudinal test of social learning theory: Adolescent smoking. Journal of Drug Issues, 26(2). Retrieved March 30, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&A N=9607110977&site=ehost-live

Augustyn, M., & McGloin, J. (2013). The risk of informal socializing with peers: Considering gender differences across predatory delinquency and substance use. JQ: Justice Quarterly, 30(1), 117–143. Retrieved November 11, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=84221164&site=ehost-live

Baron, S. W. (2003). Self-control, social consequences, and criminal behavior: Street youth and the general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40(4), 403–425. Retrieved April 2, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX.http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=11299895&site=ehost-live

Beutel, A. M., & Marini, M. M. (1995). Gender and values. American Sociological Review, 60(3), 436–448. Retrieved April 2, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9506230492&site=ehost-live

Broidy, L., & Agnew, R. (1997). Gender and crime: A general strain theory perspective. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34(3), 275–306. Retrieved March 30, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9708051578&site=ehost-live

Carstens, L. (2011). Unbecoming women: Sex reversal in the scientific discourse on female deviance in Britain, 1880–1920. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 20(1), 62–94. Retrieved November 11, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=57954903&site=ehost-live

Cummings, N. A. (2006). The APA and Psychology Need Reform. APA Convention. New Orleans.

Evans, T. D., Cullen, F. T., Burton, V. S., Dunaway, G., & Benson, M. L. (1997). The social consequences of self-control: Testing the general theory of crime. Criminology, 35(3), 475–501. Retrieved March 30, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9709046616&site=ehost-live

Gibbs, J. J., Giever, D., & Martin, J. S. (1998). Parental management and self-control: An empirical test of Gottfredson and Hirschi's General Theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35(1), 40–70. Retrieved March 30, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=169961&site=ehost-live

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Grasmick, H. C., 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(1), 5–29. Retrieved March 30, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9703103191&site=ehostlive

Hay, C. (2001). Parenting, self-control, and delinquincy: a test of self control theory. Criminology, 39(3), 707–736. Retrieved March 30, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=5101433&site=ehost-live

Hickman, M., & Piquero, A. (2001). Exploring the relationships between gender, control balance, and deviance. Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22(4), 323–351. Retrieved March 30, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=5513648&site=eds-live

Kerber, L. K. (2000). No constitutional right to be ladies (2nd Edition ed.). New York, NY: Hill and Wang.

LaGrange, T. C., & Silverman, R. A. (1999). Low self-control and opportunity: Testing the general theory of crime as an explanation for gender differences in delinquency. Criminology, 37(1), 41–72. Retrieved March 30, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=1810417&site=ehost-live

Merton, R. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672–682.

Posick, C., Farrell, A., & Swatt, M. L. (2013). Do boys fight and girls cut? A general strain theory approach to gender and deviance. Deviant Behavior, 34(9), 685–705. Retrieved November 11, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=87786341&site=ehost-live

Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38(3), 931–964. Retrieved March 30, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct =true&db=sih&AN=3865493&site=ehost-live

Sharp, S. F., Brewster, D., & Love, S. R. (2005). Disentangling strain, personal attributes, affective response and deviance: A gendered analysis. Deviant Behavior, 26(2), 133–157. Retrieved March 29, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=16336427&site=ehost-live.

Sutherland, E. H. (1940). White-collar criminality. American Sociological Review, 5(1), 1–12. Retrieved April 4, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=12826987&site=ehost-live

Tittle, C. R. (1995). Control balance: Toward a general theory of deviance. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Tittle, C. R., Ward, D. A., & Grasmick, H. G. (2003). Gender, age, and crime/deviance: A challenge to self-control theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40(4), 426–453. Retrieved March 20, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=11299896&site=ehost-live

Unnever, J. D., Cullen, F. T., & Pratt, T. C. (2003). Parental management, ADHD, and delinquent involvement: Reassuring Gottfredson and Hirshci's General Theory. Justice Quarterly, 20(3), 471–500. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=10945702&site=ehost-live

Webster's New World College Dictionary (4th Edition ed.). (2001).

Suggested Reading

Alarid, L. F., Burton, V. S., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). Gender and crime among felony offenders: Assessing the generality of social control and differential association theories. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37(2), 171–199. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=3082087&site=ehost-live

Donner, C. M. (2016). The gender gap and cybercrime: An examination of college students’ online offending. Victims & Offenders, 11(4), 556–577. Retrieved from EBSCO Online Database Sociology Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sxi&AN=118031092&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Hagan, J. & Foster, H. (2003). S/he's a rebel: Toward a sequential stress theory of delinquency and gendered pathways to disadvantage in emerging adulthood. Social Forces, 82(1), 53–86. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=112 33161&site=ehost-live

Young, R. L., & Thompson, C. Y. (2011). Gender, attributions of responsibility, and negotiation of deviant labels in small groups. Deviant Behavior, 32(7), 626–652. Retrieved November 11, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com /login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=62596638&site=ehost-live