POWERPOINT WEEK 4 DISCUSSION 2-Special Populations: A Challenge to Juvenile Justice
Special Populations: A Challenge to Juvenile Justice [WLOs: 1, 2, 3] [CLOs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
Prior to beginning work on this discussion, please review the National Gang Center’s
About the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model (Links to an external site.)
https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Comprehensive-Gang-Model/About web page. Select one of the program evaluations available on the National Gang Center web page for review. You may also want to review the recommended resources, Chapter 3 in your text which covers theories of delinquency, as well as the help guides for
PowerPoint (Links to an external site.)
and
Screencast-O-Matic (Links to an external site.)
. Then develop a short presentation the case. Your presentation should:
- Identify the program evaluation you selected.
- Describe the program’s approach, goals, and intended outcomes.
- Explain how outcomes were measured.
- Which of the theories identified in Chapter 3 does the program align with?
- Explain whether the program has been deemed effective.
If the program was deemed effective, what were the key elements that contributed?
If the program was not deemed effective, what key elements were missing? - Evaluate the evidence on effectiveness and outcome measurement provided.
Is it evidence- or anecdotally-based?
Your presentation will be a combination of slides containing visuals and bullet points, as well as narration of the content. PowerPoint (Links to an external site.) or any other presentation software may be used to create a visual presentation of your research design. Narration is required so you will need to record your presentation using
Screencast-o-matic (Links to an external site.)
or similar software. You are not required to be on camera but may choose to be on camera if you want to do so. Support your claims with examples from the required materials and a minimum of one journal article that you find using the Ashford University Library. You can use your research article in your Final Paper, due in Week 5.
The file for the presentation should be attached or embedded in your post for your peers to review, please do not link to outside locations. The following presentation resources are available in the Ashford Writing Center for you to use:
- How to Make a PowerPoint Presentation Guide (Links to an external site.)
- Presentation Tips (Links to an external site.)
Your presentation should have a minimum of five content slides (excluding title and references slides) and be at least three minutes long. Support your presentation with examples from this week’s required materials and other scholarly resources, and properly cite any references either in-text on bullet points or in the notes section and reference slide. You must use at least one scholarly or credible professional resource to support your presentation. The presentation must include a title and references slide for sources cited in the body of the presentation.
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 1 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03,…content&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
3
Theories of
Delinquency
ClassicStock.com/SuperStock
Learning Objectives
After studying this chapter, you should be able to
accomplish the following objectives:
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 2 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03,…content&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
On Friday morning May 18, 2018, a 17-year-old student armed with a shotgun and a revolver entered his
high school 30 miles southeast of Houston, Texas, and killed 10 people. Of those killed, eight were students
and two were teachers. The gunman entered a classroom and began shooting. He reportedly taunted students
in the room who were hiding and showed no remorse during the shooting. After the event, students who knew
the shooter offered a mixed account of his personality and motive. Some suggested he was the subject of
bullying and was a loner; others said he was a typical kid and didn’t show any outward signs of impending
violence.
What sets this mass school shooting apart from others of recent times is that the gunman surrendered to the
officers who confronted him. Capturing the shooter may enable us to understand his mindset as communities
are left grappling with many questions. Why would someone enter a school and inflict such violent
destruction? How does someone so young even gain access to the weaponry? How can someone so young
carry out acts so unthinkable and gruesome?
Another important question is whether violent behavior develops spontaneously or is due to specific factors.
Although the perpetrator was 17, it is hard for many people to conceive that he woke up one day and simply
became a murderer. Rather, many theories argue that criminal behavior emerges from a variety of
circumstances and situations that develop over time. Explaining delinquency requires us to simultaneously
examine juvenile delinquency and adult criminal
behavior.
As such, the theories that we will discuss in this
chapter often apply to both adults and juveniles.
Define criminology.
Explain the classical and neoclassical theories of
crime.
Summarize early biological and psychological
theories of crime.
Analyze modern biological and psychological
theories of crime.
Describe sociological theories for understanding
crime.
Evaluate how crime is understood according to
learning theory perspectives.
Explain how social bonding theory helps us to
understand crime.
Evaluate the role society plays in criminal
behavior.
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 3 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03,…content&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
High school students in Illinois walk out in
protest of gun violence in schools one month
after a deadly shooting in a Parkland, Florida,
high school.
Brian Hill/Daily Herald/
Associated Press
3.1 Introduction
Criminology is the scientific study of criminal behavior.
Scientific simply means that criminologists use a variety
of methods to study why people commit crime. The
methods used to study crime can have a big impact on
how resulting theories develop. For example, if
researchers choose to examine why juveniles commit
murder, they might use homicide statistics collected
through the Uniform Crime Report (UCR). The homicide
rates would allow them to examine whether there are
patterns for murder. The researchers may ask the
following types of questions: Is murder more likely to
occur in particular areas? Are men more likely than
women to be arrested for homicide? If the answers to
these questions are yes, then researchers can theorize
about whether environmental factors or gender are
important in explaining why murder occurs. By contrast,
if criminologists want to examine why juveniles might
use drugs, they wouldn’t rely on the UCR. The UCR
would provide the number of people arrested for drug possession but no information about why individuals
choose to use drugs. Self-report surveys would be a better mechanism for studying drug use. Utilizing a
variety of methods enables criminologists to provide theories that offer a deeper understanding of why people
engage in deviant behavior.
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 4 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03,…content&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
According to deterrence theory, people weigh
the outcome of getting caught against the
benefits of the deviant behavior.
Creatas Images/Thinkstock
3.2 Classical and Neoclassical Theories: Choosing Crime
The field of criminology is fairly new relative to other fields such as psychology. Although one of the field’s
theories, deterrence, emerged in the 18th century, criminology as a field of study did not begin to fully
emerge until the early 1900s. It is important to understand how and why these theories developed because
nearly every criminological theory in existence was influenced by the historical context at the time it
developed. In this chapter we will discuss the major criminological theories and their relevance to explaining
juvenile delinquency.
Classical School
One of the oldest theories to explain criminal behavior is
deterrence theory. According to deterrence theory, often
referred to as the classical school of criminology, people
decide to commit crime when the benefits outweigh the
potential costs. Although developed in the mid-1700s, the
theory is still very relevant today. Deterrence theory
developed during a time referred to as the Age of
Enlightenment. Before that time, torture and other severe
punishments were commonplace. In the Middle Ages, the
focus of punishment was often harsh and based on the
belief that people were evil. The punishments often
included public hangings, drowning, and other forms of
torture with the intent of ridding the person or society of
the evil forces. The focus on evil is compatible with the
belief that people are born bad or are influenced by internal forces. Blaming an individual’s behavior on
factors outside of their control is referred to as determinism.
Deterrence theorists Jeremy Bentham and Cesare Beccaria argued that behavior is not the result of internal
forces beyond the individual’s control. Rather they believed that deviant behavior, or all human behavior for
that matter, results from a calculated and rational thought process. They held that individuals possess free
will to choose the way they act. Beccaria and Bentham argued that people behave in ways that benefit them
or have utility. When deciding whether a situation has utility, individuals must weigh both the costs and
benefits of a particular action. For example, if someone is deciding whether to steal an iPad left lying on a
table in the library, that person would most likely weigh the outcome of getting caught (e.g., arrest, shame,
parental reaction) against the benefit of possessing the iPad. If the person views the negative consequences of
this action as outweighing the positive, that person is less likely to engage in the deviant behavior. The
decision to act in this way is influenced not by factors outside the individual’s control (e.g., psychological
defect, satanic possession) but rather simply by the decision to maximize pleasure over pain (Devine, 1982).
Deterrence theorists argue that people make rational decisions with the hope of maximizing benefits while
avoiding consequences. To deter someone from engaging in criminal behavior, the consequences must
outweigh the gains associated with the crime. Several features of punishment must exist in order for
deterrence to work. First, punishment should simply be proportionate to the crime committed. Second, the
consequences of the behavior should also be fair, balanced, and calculated to just offset the gains of crime.
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 5 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03,…content&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
Third, for the punishment to offset the gains of crime, it needs to be swift and certain. If a youth thinks there
is a low likelihood of getting caught or being punished even if caught, then he or she is likely to choose the
gains crime provides. Finally, punishment should serve two purposes: to deter an individual from committing
a crime in the future (specific deterrence) and to send a message to would-be offenders to dissuade them from
committing a crime (general deterrence).
One might argue that torture and even death could deter someone from committing crime, but deterrence
theorists do not believe that these types of punishments are needed. They argue that torture, death, or the use
of excessively severe sanctions is inappropriate. For example, losing one’s hand for theft (not uncommon at
the time deterrence theory was developed) was too severe. Deterrence theorists argued that fines or
incarceration instead of such barbaric means could deter someone. In addition, they were concerned that
severe sanctions could escalate criminal behavior. The concept that it is more effective to punish serious
crimes with severe punishment is referred to as marginal deterrence. If petty crimes are subject to the same
harsh punishments as serious crimes, a person may choose the more serious crime with the potential of a
larger payoff. For example, if all crimes resulted in death or torture, there would be little to dissuade a
juvenile from murdering potential witnesses to avoid detection (Stigler, 1970).
Deterrence theory fell out of favor by the mid to late 1800s. One of the major criticisms of the theory rested
with its inability to explain why some crimes seem less rational than others. For example, some people make
clearly calculated and rational decisions (e.g., a juvenile who plans how he or she will commit a robbery),
while other criminal behavior appears to be more spontaneous (e.g., crimes of passion) or influenced by other
factors (e.g., drug use or mental illness). This approach to understanding crime has resurfaced more recently
but in a slightly different form. The theory tends to focus now on how individuals perceive the threat of
sanctions differently, in particular how an individual perceives situations and relative risk when making
decisions (Apel & Nagin, 2011).
Neoclassical School
The early and mid-20th century focused on rehabilitation for criminal behavior rather than punishment. But
in the 1970s, rehabilitation began to wane as an approach for dealing with juvenile crime. The focus on the
juvenile’s rights made punishment that was fair, balanced, and proportionate more attractive. In addition,
there were concerns that juvenile drug use was on the rise, and many observers began to see the system as too
soft on crime. Some criminologists began resurrecting the virtues of the classical school. The revised
approach is often referred to as the neoclassical school, which includes both rational choice and routine
activities theories.
Rational Choice Theory
Rational choice theory borrows from the foundation of deterrence theory and retains the focus on rational
decision making but argues that people carefully consider other factors such as their skill level and target
suitability. The theory assumes that those who engage in criminal behavior decide that the behavior is worth
the risk of apprehension. While Beccaria and Bentham focused on the rational aspect of crime, they failed to
detail the factors that influence decision making. Rational choice theory argues that a variety of factors may
impact how and why individuals decide to engage in criminal behavior.
Rational choice theorists argue that people consider not
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 6 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03,…content&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
In 2009 the FBI arrested a dozen people for
drug trafficking after discovering 33 pounds of
heroin worth $30 million stuffed inside Build-a-
Bear toys.
Associated Press
only the risk of apprehension but also the seriousness of
the punishment, the outcome of the behavior (e.g.,
property gained, status incurred, reduction in peer
pressure), and their immediate need for the value or result
of the criminal behavior (e.g., financial need, need for
status, peer approval). To increase their chances of
success, people will carefully choose targets and evaluate
their own skills. Choosing targets may include evaluating
security devices (e.g., cameras, guard dogs, fences) or
ease of escape (e.g., access roads, unguarded entry, and
exit points). They will also evaluate their own ability and
individual traits (e.g., physical requirements of crime,
skill/knowledge) necessary to be successful (Ward,
Stafford, & Gray, 2006).
One type of crime that lends itself well to the principles
of rational choice theory is drug trafficking. Selling drugs
often requires some degree of planning and forethought
to avoid apprehension. Bruce Jacobs and Jody Miller
(1998) interviewed drug dealers and found that they often
went to great lengths to avoid detection. For example, the drug dealers in Jacobs and Miller’s study indicated
that they hid their drugs in numerous obscure locations including curtain rods, in a bowl of popcorn on the
living room coffee table, or in hollowed-out ear muffs. Others found that drug dealers will keep only smaller
amounts of drugs on hand in case of detection (Jacobs, 1996). Jacobs and Miller also found that female
traffickers took a number of steps to protect their self-images. In particular, they dressed in a way that would
not call attention to themselves, they avoided public areas for transactions, and they even portrayed
themselves as simply strung-out users. Dealers also were careful to sell only during the hours when stores and
bars were open. However, Jacobs and Miller reported that dealers would take their chances on the first of the
month when people received their checks and were more willing to purchase additional drugs. On those
occasions, dealers made the calculated risk to stay out all night to serve demand.
Each of these examples portrays drug dealers as calculating entrepreneurs weighing costs and benefits to
make their business more successful. In fact, theorists would argue that criminals are not completely unlike
conventional citizens. The criminals are making decisions to better their financial standings and obtain the
American Dream (discussed further in the “Anomie Theory” section), albeit through unconventional means.
Routine Activities Theory
Another criminological theory developed around this time, routine activities theory, is similar to rational
choice theory in that both theories recognize that criminal behavior is a choice. However, according to routine
activities theory, the environment limits the delinquent’s ability to make choices. The theory, developed by
Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson (1979), outlines three factors related to crime:
Availability of suitable targets
Absence of capable guardians
Presence of motivated offenders
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 7 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03,…content&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
Cohen and Felson (1979) conclude that crime is more likely to occur when these three factors converge in
“time and space.” Similar to rational choice and deterrence theories, routine activities theory argues that
people weigh the costs and benefits of crime before they act. In particular, they recognize that capable
guardians (e.g., police, cameras, alarm systems, guard dogs) increase the likelihood of getting caught. If these
capable guardians exist, the crimes become riskier and criminals are potentially dissuaded from acting.
Similarly, the would-be delinquent will consider suitability of the target. Suitability can include whether the
item is portable (e.g., an iPad is easier to steal than a desktop computer) or has higher likelihood of value
(e.g., jewelry store versus convenience store).
Theories in Practice
All three of these theories—deterrence, rational choice, and routine activities—are the foundation of a
number of policies we see in the field every day. With regard to deterrence theory, Scared Straight programs,
boot camps, and chain gangs were implemented in the 1980s and 1990s with the goal of increasing the
severity of the criminal justice system. Similarly, mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses or
determinate sentencing policies were created with the goal of certainty in mind. With regard to routine
activities and rational choice theories, metal detectors in schools, police foot patrol, cameras in downtown
public areas, guards in banks, or undercover officers in stores are all trying to address the issue of capable
guardianship. Similarly, stores go to great lengths to protect suitable targets such as by placing jewelry, iPads,
and other electronic devices under lock and key. Easy-to-steal items such as cigarettes and lottery tickets are
placed behind the counter. Each of these policies is designed to protect the target (also referred to as target
hardening) in an effort to tip the balance when a person is considering whether it is reasonable to commit a
crime.
Although these theories are popular, some observers believe that people are not always rational actors in their
environment. The next group of theories examine whether abnormal biological or psychological traits can
influence deviance.
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 8 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03,…content&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
3.3 Early Biological and Psychological Theories
Unlike rational choice theory, biological and psychological theories examine whether internal factors
influence behavior. Early scientific studies of criminal behavior focused primarily on physical features. In
particular, phrenologists believed that we could examine an individual’s physical features, primarily the skull,
to determine the person’s brain size and therefore his or her propensity for criminal behavior. One of the most
famous studies in the late 1800s was conducted by Cesare Lombroso. Lombroso used the bodies of executed
criminals to argue that criminals shared certain physical characteristics that differentiated them from others.
He argued that criminals were less evolved than others and were throwbacks to a more primitive savage
group. The characteristics he proposed to be related to crime included large jaws and foreheads, eyes set
farther apart, and excessively long arms (Gould, 1996). This theory was later discredited, as body type was
not found to be associated with criminal behavior.
Similarly, William Sheldon (1949) developed his theory of criminal behavior by arguing that body typing, or
somotyping, could predict behavior. He maintained that criminals were often physically stronger than others,
and physical qualities could be used to predict delinquency. He developed three typologies to categorize these
predictors:
Mesomorphs: muscular, active, aggressive, and more likely to be violent
Ectomorphs: thin, tall, and less likely to be involved in crime
Endomorphs: heavier-set individuals; considered slower physically and, as such, willing to commit
crimes requiring less physical effort
Although these theories of brain size and other physical characteristics were compelling at the time, the
research failed to find the connection between body type and criminal behavior. What somotyping failed to
consider is why an individual may be strong or weak (e.g., diet, prenatal care) and why only some people
who have these characteristics commit crime. In other words, we know that criminals come in all shapes and
sizes.
From a psychological perspective, Sigmund Freud reasoned that unconscious psychological drives could
influence behavior. His psychodynamic theory regards behavior as emanating from childhood experiences
and attachments that exert great influence on future relationships, coping styles, and other behaviors. He
claimed that each person has a personality comprised of an id, an ego, and a superego. The id represents the
pleasure principle, or an individual’s intense need for instant gratification. If the id is left unchecked, people
can act without regard for others. The second aspect, referred to as the ego, recognizes right and wrong but
only in the context of rules or laws. This aspect of an individual’s personality provides a strong sense of
justice but has difficulty understanding the complexity of behavior. Finally, the superego recognizes right
from wrong but understands complex moral issues as well. The superego may recognize that stealing is
wrong, but it can also understand why a person might steal to survive. Ultimately, the ego and the superego
would help to offset or mediate the impulses of the id. Freud claimed that those with an undercontrolled id or
underdeveloped ego and superego were more likely to engage in crime. Although Freud’s psychodynamic
theory is not considered a major player in criminological theory, more contemporary versions that consider
the importance of early childhood experiences, particularly trauma, on future behavior are very relevant.
Psychological and biological explanations for crime have regained prominence in recent years and will be
discussed in the next section of this chapter; however, by the end of the 1800s the field moved away from
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 9 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03,…content&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
these theories of crime. The reason for this shift was twofold. First, many people had concerns about the
theories’ policy implications. Specifically, many were concerned that individuals would be identified by their
head size or body type, as discussed earlier, and labeled and confined based on these superficial differences
(Andrews & Wormith, 1989). At the same time, these theories fell from favor because the field of sociology
was gaining prominence. During the early 1900s, society was undergoing tremendous change. The United
States began moving from an agricultural-based society to an industrial one, and as a result, urban areas were
experiencing a substantial population boom. The movement to the urban areas created a tremendous amount
of instability as people from different areas and cultures settled into different neighborhoods. Although
massive population shifts have subsided, the concern over environmental impacts on behavior remains.
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 10 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03…ontent&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
3.4 Modern Biological and Psychological Theories
Understanding the role of the brain, genetics, or personality in explaining criminal behavior is the subject of
the next group of theories.
Biosocial Approach
Modern trait theories recognize the importance of both the environment and individual differences that exist
among people. Biosocial trait theories argue that understanding criminal behavior rests with how biology
and the environment interact. This school of thought contends that someone’s biological makeup can
influence how they respond to their environment and that the environment can also have a reciprocating
impact on behavior. Unlike Lombroso and Sheldon, modern trait theorists recognize the complexity of
biological factors at work. It is not that someone is simply born with a “bad” biological trait (or a body type
as argued by Sheldon); rather, the biological trait provides a basis for how individuals might interact in their
environment (Ellis & Walsh, 1997; Rocque, Welsh, & Raine, 2012).
Proponents of genetic explanations for behavior point to the results of twin and adoption studies as evidence
to support their approach. Twin studies examine whether identical twins are more likely to share similar
behaviors due to their identical genetic makeup. Some studies find that identical twins are similar in various
ways, including level of aggression, verbal skills, conduct disorder, impulsivity, and callous and unemotional
behavior (Dionne, Tremblay, Boivin, Laplante, & Perusse, 2003; Rowe & Osgood, 1984; Scourfield, Van den
Bree, Martin, & McGuffin, 2004; Taylor, Loney, Bobadilla, Iacono, & McGue, 2003). Others argue, however,
that the similarity is due to the fact that twins are often treated alike, and the behavior of siblings, while often
similar, can simply be the result of environmental impacts such as exposure to the same schools, peers, and
family.
Given this criticism, researchers have examined adopted children to explore whether their behavior is more
similar to their adoptive parent or their biological parent. Such studies are called adoption studies.
Biological theorists would argue that the behavior should be more similar to the biological parent even when
they do not have exposure to that parent after birth. In fact, some studies do support this idea. An adoption
study that examined children from Denmark found that the biological father’s criminality was strongly related
to the child’s criminality (Hutchings & Mednick, 1977). However, others found that being adopted into a
positive environment reduced the genetic effect (Cohen & Machalek, 1988), and still others have called into
question whether people inherit criminal tendencies at all (Burt & Simons, 2014). More recent research
suggests that biology and environment continually interact to influence behavior.
Other factors in addition to genetics may be correlated with crime. The factors vary and range from
contaminants in the environment or the impact of poor nutrition during fetal development, to neurological
disorders among violent offenders. There are many influences to consider, but let’s consider some of the
leading factors, namely environmental contaminants and hormones.
Environmental contaminants can include factors that we ingest, breathe, or are otherwise exposed to in our
environment. Those contaminants can impact factors such as brain development, depression, anxiety, levels
of aggression, and hyperactivity (Konofal, Lecendreux, Arnulf, & Mouren, 2004). Numerous studies have
shown that exposure to lead can influence brain development, aggressive behavior, and lower IQ scores
(Bellinger, 2004; Stretesky & Lynch, 2001). The relationship between IQ and crime is an interesting one.
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 11 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03…content&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
Studies have shown that men with
high levels of testosterone are more
likely to be aggressive.
PYMCA/SuperStock
Theorists argue that people with low IQ scores are at a greater risk
for delinquency given the potential impact on school performance.
Those with low IQs are less likely to do well in school and are more
likely to drop out of school, which is a significant risk factor for
delinquency (Wilson & Herrnstein, 1985). Essentially, because their
opportunities become more limited due to challenges excelling in
school, individuals might be more susceptible to acting on criminal
opportunities instead as a way of “getting along” or “making due” in
life.
Hormones are also implicated as a correlate of crime. Criminologists
have long theorized that testosterone has implications for behavior.
Although animal studies have clearly shown this link, human studies
are mixed. Studies in support of this perspective argue that
hormones can impact the brain, making individuals less sensitive to
stimuli, so that they in turn seek out more thrilling situations to
stimulate their brain (Booth & Osgood, 1993). However, meta-
analyses by Book, Starzyk, and Quinsey (2001) found only a weak
relationship between testosterone and aggressive behavior, whereas
a study by Carré and Archer (2018) found that testosterone could
influence aggression during an experimental competition. The
research is still emerging, but biosocial theorists argue that
environmental factors can influence an individual’s biological
makeup and subsequently that person’s behavior.
Personality Theory
Personality theory argues that individual traits such as psychopathy influence criminal behavior. Hans
Eysenck (1983) studied personality and crime and found a link between three types. Specifically, he found
that neurotics, psychopaths, and extroverts were more likely to be involved in crime. He theorized that
psychoticism was always related to crime, extroversion was related in younger samples, and neuroticism in
older samples.
Psychopaths are often described as lacking in empathy and having poor interpersonal relationships. These
individuals are also considered highly manipulative and callous in their interactions with others. Extroverts,
by contrast, are likely to be involved in crime due to their desire to be social and their need for risky or
thrilling situations. The last type, neuroticism, is more difficult to understand. Many people think of neurotics
as introverts who avoid social situations due to their anxiety. This may be the case for some, but neurotics
also tend to worry excessively and view the world in a negative way.
The relationship between neuroticism and crime was further explored by a group of researchers examining a
trait they refer to as negative affectivity. Avshalom Caspi and associates (1994) studied the relationship
between personality and crime among adolescents involved in both the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and
Development (DMHD) study and the Pittsburgh Youth Study. They found that individuals with high trait
anxiety, often called negative affectivity, tend to be distressed and have a very negative view of themselves,
often worry, and tend to dwell on frustrations and disappointments. In addition, individuals who also score
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 12 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03…ontent&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
low on a trait called constraint tend to take risks and approach situations with fewer worries of the
consequences (Caspi et al., 1994). As a result, individuals with a personality marked by negative emotionality
paired with low constraint have a higher likelihood of engaging in criminal acts (Caspi et al., 1994). If we
consider a youth who is likely to view even benign situations as hostile and impulsively reacts with anger, we
can see that having this type of personality will increase one’s risk of delinquency.
Remember, criminologists moved away from individual-level explanations for behavior because of concerns
about whether individuals would be treated differently based on factors that were largely out of their control.
Today these theorists argue that although the risk for this mistreatment exists, many reasonable policy
implications can be gleaned from these theories. For example, education campaigns directed at the removal
of lead from homes can positively impact the number of children exposed to this toxic chemical. In addition,
individuals with the personality traits discussed here can be taught coping skills and problem-solving skills to
manage their propensity for impulsivity and thus their risk for criminal behavior.
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 13 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03…ontent&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
3.5 Sociological Theories: Disorganization and Inequality
The impact of environmental conditions on crime is hard to ignore. Since the early 1900s, the impact of
social conditions such as poverty, unemployment, and inequality on crime has been the subject of numerous
research studies. When the United States moved from an agricultural to an industrial-based society in the
early 1900s, the shift was partly due to the increase in job opportunities in industrialized cities. These
opportunities led to a vast migration of individuals to city centers. The migration threw many cities into a
state of chaos as they tried to absorb people from a variety of backgrounds in a short period of time. Fast-
forward to today and many observers would argue that our city centers remain in a state of chaos, with failing
schools and high rates of poverty, unemployment, drug use, and gang violence.
For instance, let’s examine the rates of poverty in Philadelphia. With more than 1.57 million people, it is the
most populous city in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia has one of the highest poverty rates among the 10 largest
cities in America. The migration of people out of the core city and into the surrounding suburbs has created
substantial variation across the county’s communities. Philadelphia is home to approximately a quarter of the
state’s population but over 50% of the state’s residents who live in poverty (Pew, 2017). This is evidenced by
the city’s social and economic indicators listed in Table 3.1. We can see, for example, a large disparity in
median income between Philadelphia and Pennsylvania as a whole. Over a third of Philadelphia residents
younger than age 18 are below the poverty line, compared to 19.1% of Pennsylvania residents. (Visit
https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty.html (https://www.census.gov/topics/income-
poverty/poverty.html) to learn more about the Census Bureau’s tracking of high-poverty areas.) The
environmental conditions at play here are the focus of the next group of sociological theories: social
disorganization, anomie, general strain, and cultural deviance.
Table 3.1: Social and economic data comparing the city of Philadelphia with the state of
Pennsylvania as a whole
Factor Philadelphia Pennsylvania
Population size 1,526,006 12,783,977
Persons under 18 22.2% 21.2%
Family households 56.8%* 65.0%
Race/ethnicity
White 41.0% 81.9%
Black or African American 43.4% 10.8%
Hispanic or Latino 12.3% 5.7%
Median income (household) $39,770 $54,895
% below poverty 25.9% 15.1%
% < 18 years old below poverty 36.7% 19.1%
% Unemployed** 7.5% 4.5%
https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty.html
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 14 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03…ontent&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
*Based on total number of households.
**Based on population 16 years and over.
From “Community facts,” in American fact finder,, by U.S. Census Bureau, n.d., Retrieved from
h t t p s : / / f a c t fin d e r. c e n s u s . g o v / f a c e s / n a v / j s f / p a g e s / c o m m u n i t y _ f a c t s . x h t m l ? s rc = b k m kh t t p s : / / f a c t fin d e r. c e n s u s . g o v / f a c e s / n a v / j s f / p a g e s / c o m m u n i t y _ f a c t s . x h t m l ? s rc = b k m k ( (
h t t p s : / / f a c t fin d e r. c e n s u s . g o v / f a c e s / n a v / j s f / p a g e s / c o m m u n i t y _ f a c t s . x h t m l ? s rc = b k m k )h t t p s : / / f a c t fin d e r. c e n s u s . g o v / f a c e s / n a v / j s f / p a g e s / c o m m u n i t y _ f a c t s . x h t m l ? s rc = b k m k )
Social Disorganization Theory
Social disorganization theory argues that the cause of crime can be found in the environmental conditions
within impoverished areas. The theory emanates from the work of Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay at the
University of Chicago in the early part of the 20th century. They examined crime rates across Chicago and
found the highest rates were in areas closest to the downtown or center business district. The inner-city zone,
which they referred to as the zone of transition, was characterized by large numbers of foreign-born
residents, a concept they referred to as ethnic heterogeneity because of the diversity of its inhabitants. The
neighborhoods were considered transitional because of the high rate of turnover among residents. In other
words, these were areas people were often forced to live in because it brought them closer to employment
opportunities, but these were not places where people wanted to stay and establish long-term relationships.
This movement in and out of the city is referred to as residential mobility (Shaw & McKay, 1972).
The combination of a diverse set of cultures among the people living in these areas combined with the high
rate of turnover left the neighborhoods with the inability to socialize youth because there were no uniform or
consistent norms to guide their behavior. Youth were often left to their own devices in establishing their
identity in these neighborhoods. Informal sources of control broke down as different cultural groups clashed.
As a result, youth gangs began to emerge as a means of survival.
Social disorganization theory remained popular for a number of years; however, it lost favor by the 1960s
when people began to question whether the theory relied too heavily on the UCR. The UCR shows that crime
rates are higher among those who live in depressed socioeconomic areas; however, self-report surveys
challenge this view and illustrate that people from all economic backgrounds are committing crime. Social
disorganization theory cannot explain why youth who come from middle- and upper-class backgrounds
commit crime.
Today social disorganization theory focuses on community deterioration and poverty and less on ethnic
heterogeneity. Although still not explaining middle-class crime, the contemporary version of social
disorganization theory emphasizes the association between criminal behavior and other environmental (also
referred to as ecological) factors such as disorder, fear, poverty, and feelings of hostility (Bursik, 1988).
Contemporary social disorganization theorists examine the impact of population migration to the suburbs,
leaving the inner cities with high rates of poverty. As middle- and upper-income residents leave cities, they
also take with them forms of informal support and financial resources. As a result, fewer businesses choose to
locate in these areas, and poverty becomes more concentrated, as the lack of employment opportunities
increases. These neighborhoods lose cohesion, which diminishes their collective efficacy. Collective efficacy
refers to the community’s ability to exert control over its residents through informal (trust and respect among
neighbors) and formal means (neighborhood watch groups, curfew enforcement by police). The lack of
collective efficacy in these communities increases the probability of crime and disorder (Sampson, Morenoff,
& Earls, 1999).
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml?src=bkmk
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 15 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03…ontent&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
In addition to reduced opportunities for higher wages and resources, residents in disorganized communities
experience higher levels of fear and distrust. Fear and distrust can exacerbate crime in various ways. First,
residents may fear exerting informal control, such as telling a group of teenagers to disperse from a street
corner, because of fears that the teens may retaliate violently. Second, residents (particularly youth) may
begin to feel hopeless about their own futures and take greater risks. Third, residents may feel that the police
are unable to exert control in their neighborhoods and as a result fail to call the police when disorder erupts,
or they may feel police are intentionally racist (Anderson, 1990), both of which further escalates mistrust and
crime.
Several policies have emerged directly from social disorganization theory. The most prominent policy was
implemented in Chicago, where the theory originated. The Chicago Area Project (CAP) is a program
designed to assist at-risk juveniles through strengthening neighborhoods. CAP offers numerous services,
including academic tutoring, peer mentoring, career development and training, and community development.
You can learn more at www.Chicagoareaproject.org (http://www.chicagoareaproject.org/) .
Social disorganization theory is closely related to another theory, referred to as anomie theory.
Anomie Theory: A Breakdown in Values
Robert Merton developed anomie theory based on the work of Durkheim (Merton, 1968). Anomie means
“normlessness,” so anomie theory argues that societies that fail to establish or have a breakdown in norms
and values will lead to criminal behavior and higher crime rates. Although still focused on environmental
conditions, anomie theory takes a slightly different perspective in explaining criminal behavior. The focus is
broadened from the economic conditions of urban areas to economic structures inherent in capitalist societies.
In capitalist societies, the American Dream of financial success is held in high esteem. People are taught that
if they work hard they can achieve this financial status. Stories of people who came from impoverished
backgrounds but achieved high degrees of wealth (e.g., Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey) are given a great deal of
respect in society. However, studies show that most people will not substantially change their class status
from one generation to the next. This finding makes sense if we consider the structural forces working against
people in impoverished areas: failing schools, high unemployment rates, high incarceration rates among
residents, and lack of opportunities for advancement.
In this American context, theorists argue that when a greater emphasis is placed on the goals (in this case,
financial respect) rather than the means (e.g., staying in school, working hard), people are more likely to
obtain their goals by any means necessary, including criminal and delinquent behavior. Although some
people adapt by conforming, others innovate and adopt alternative means to obtain wealth, such as by drug
dealing, robbery, burglary, and the like. Although anomie theory increases our understanding of crime and
deviance, its broad approach doesn’t explain the entire picture.
Anomie theory is a macro theory, which means that it focuses on crime rates rather than the motivations of
individuals. Micro-level theories focus on how and why people respond to adverse conditions. In particular,
as a result of the inequality, some residents who work hard feel deprived due to their inability to achieve
wealth through legitimate means and experience feelings of hostility, injustice, and distrust of the avenues
available to them for success. Wealth is concentrated among the few. The micro-level theory that plays off of
anomie is referred to as strain theory. Originally developed by Robert Agnew, strain theory focuses on why
individuals who feel stress or alienation may be more likely to turn to crime. Although Agnew developed two
http://www.chicagoareaproject.org/
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 16 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03…ontent&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
Those with “juice” are able to take care of
themselves on the street and are often highly
successful at criminal behavior.
Design Pics/Thinkstock
variations of this theory (classic and general), we will touch upon the more popular version referred to as
general strain theory.
General Strain Theory
According to general strain theory, certain strains, or stresses, increase the likelihood of crime (Agnew,
1992, 2001, 2006). Strain can involve encountering something negative (e.g., abuse, negative school
experiences), losing something positive (e.g., job, family member), or being unable to achieve something
important or valued (e.g., money, respect, or status). Strains that are seen as unfair or undeserved and those
that occur frequently are more likely to create a scenario in which someone may choose to commit crime to
alleviate the stress. For example, strains that are high in magnitude include frequent fights with family
members, chronic unemployment or failure in school, homelessness, verbal or physical abuse from peers, and
failure to achieve a goal such as status or respect from peers.
Strain is more likely to lead to crime when the stressful event leads to negative emotions such as anger and
frustration. Crime may allow individuals to escape from or reduce their strain (e.g., run away from abusive
parents, steal the money they desire), obtain revenge against the source of their strain or related targets, and
alleviate their negative emotions (e.g., through illicit drug use). This theory has been tested in a number of
settings with all types of groups (e.g., adults, juveniles, men, women) and has immense empirical support
(see Agnew, 2017).
Cultural Deviance Theory
Cultural deviance theory asserts that the culture of
many impoverished areas is one of frustration at not
being able to achieve wealth by conventional means. As
such, people develop a different set of norms and rules
for behavior that includes deviant means to obtaining
wealth. According to this theory, middle-class status of
wealth and respect is the cultural norm in the United
States to which everyone is supposed to aspire. Albert
Cohen argued that people feel frustration over not being
able to achieve success according to this “middle class
measuring rod.” Consequently, by rejecting middle-class
values of delaying gratification, working hard, and
“playing by the rules,” youth create their own set of
values and norms that are achievable by way of criminal
behavior. By breaking the “rules,” youth are able to achieve financial status. From this subculture also
emerges a value and respect for toughness, risk taking, and virility among men, all of which tend to be
downplayed in conventional middle-class norms.
In his book Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City, Elijah Anderson
(2000) sheds light on the diverse subcultures that exist within urban areas. Through his interviews with youth
and families in Philadelphia, Anderson found that poor inner-city males build their respect through their
physical virility and dominance on the street, a phenomenon referred to as having “juice.” Those with juice
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 17 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03…content&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
are able to take care of themselves on the street and are often highly successful at criminal behavior.
Anderson also discussed the fact that not all youth respect gang culture and that both “decent” and “street”
families exist in the inner city. Decent families are those that teach their children respect, hard work, and self-
reliance. These families are considered the working poor, trying to survive through conventional means (e.g.,
hard work and dedication). There are also street families, or those that hold antisocial values and see criminal
behavior as a legitimate way to achieve financial status. These families encourage youth to stand up for
themselves and gain respect through violence or “street justice” when necessary.
The policy implications of these theories are varied. On a macro level, we could argue that programs and
services should be designed to create opportunities for disadvantaged communities. These opportunities
could occur in schools (e.g., hiring high-performing teachers in inner-city schools) and communities (e.g.,
increasing job opportunities for residents). At the micro level, programs and services could be designed to
teach individuals coping skills to deal with strains or adversity in their daily lives and interactions with
others.
Although these sociological theories are popular, critics contend that not all youth who come from inner cities
commit crime and they question whether youth from lower socioeconomic circumstances adhere to a set of
values distinct from those in higher socioeconomic settings. For example, research has shown that even gang-
involved youth report having respect for middle-class values, such as cooperation, earning money, and the
existence of laws to govern behavior (Polk, Frease, & Richmond, 1974). Others argue that individual
differences and protective factors are key to understanding why youth from disorganized areas do not engage
in criminal behavior (see Farrington, Ttofi, & Piquero, 2016).
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 18 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03…ontent&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
Sutherland argues that criminal techniques are
learned, most likely in intimate groups that
spend a lot of time together.
Purestock/Thinkstock
3.6 Learning Theories: Learning to Be Criminal
While not completely abandoning the environmental or cultural explanations as “causes” of crime, another
group of theorists argue that people engage in crime because they learn that deviant behavior is acceptable.
Where they learn that this behavior is acceptable can vary, but often it includes family and friends or others
whom they respect. For example, the delinquent youth may have a mother or father who believes that
criminal behavior is appropriate and who rewards deviance. Youth may learn through their peers that criminal
behavior is exciting, or they may engage in crime to earn status with their peer group. Regardless of the
source, learning to be criminal follows along the same path as any other type of learning.
Differential Association/Social Learning
Edwin Sutherland developed differential association theory in the late 1930s and argued that environments
played a key role but focused on how people learn to be criminal through their interactions with others.
Sutherland also argued that crime was not confined to the street but also occurred within business
organizations (Sutherland, Cressey, & Luckenbill, 1992). He studied manufacturing companies and found
that many of the managers and owners engaged in a variety of criminal and regulatory violations. He believed
that economic conditions could influence crime; however, he also believed that people learn to become
criminal through a process of associating with others.
Sutherland outlined nine principles to describe the
process of learning. According to the nine principles,
criminal behavior is learned through interacting with
delinquent others. He also noted, however, that simply
being exposed to delinquents was not sufficient for
learning to occur. He maintained that learning was most
likely to occur within intimate groups—in other words,
people who have the most influence over our behavior:
friends, family, mentors, and coworkers. He also
maintained that by interacting with others, we learn
criminal techniques, or how to commit crime, and
eventually this process leads to a shift in “motives and
drives,” which are attitudes or views supportive of crime.
In other words, if people argue that their criminal
behavior is justified (e.g., “marijuana should be legal,”
“stores have insurance so they won’t lose anything by me
shoplifting”), they are more likely to engage in that
behavior. Finally, he argued that frequency, duration, priority, and intensity matter in relation to how we learn
from other people (Sutherland et al., 1992). For example, a youth’s friend is more likely to have an impact if
the youth sees that person frequently over an extended period of time, if the youth is close to that person, and
if the relationship is important to the youth. In this way, youth can learn that crime is acceptable in almost any
context: any socioeconomic class, in rural or urban areas, in the home or the workplace.
For learning to occur and be sustained, however, there is one key ingredient that Sutherland did not discuss:
reinforcement, or rewards for a certain behavior. To illustrate, imagine a youth who commits a crime and is
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 19 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03…ontent&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
caught and punished. That youth may be less likely to commit that crime again because the criminal behavior
was not successful; the youth’s behavior was not reinforced. By contrast, if a youth commits a crime and is
not caught, the action is deemed a success. But success is not simply a matter of not getting caught by police.
Success may include receiving praise from one’s peers or family. It may also include the feelings of pride
youth experience once they have successfully committed a crime or the physiological high associated with
drug and alcohol use. In short, the youth’s behavior is reinforced in a number of ways, all of which may
motivate the youth to commit more crime.
Reinforcement is the core concept behind Ronald Aker’s social learning theory (Akers, 1999). Akers
extended differential association theory by adding the component of reinforcement. A number of studies
support the idea that people are more likely to repeat behavior that is rewarded. The idea applies not just to
criminal behavior. Walk through any casino in Las Vegas to see this effect.
Neutralization Theory
Neutralization theory further explores the idea that criminals have antisocial attitudes and argues that people
often minimize criminal behavior to resolve feelings of guilt and responsibility. Gresham Sykes and David
Matza (1957) developed this theory in the 1940s. They argued that criminal behavior occurs once delinquents
master techniques that allow them to neutralize feelings about their criminal behavior. In other words, most
people will feel guilty when they commit a crime. The guilt must be neutralized or taken away somehow. The
best way to neutralize guilt is to develop reasons (or rationalizations) as to why the crime occurred. Some of
those rationalizations include “It wasn’t my fault,” “The victim had it coming,” and “The store has insurance
and will be able to cover the losses.”
These rationalizations (others may call them excuses) allow delinquents to justify their behavior.
Sykes and Matza (1957) also argued that these neutralizations allowed delinquents to drift or go back and
forth between conventional and nonconventional roles. They asserted that many people who commit crime
are conventional in many aspects of their lives. Think, for an example, about a youth who attends school
regularly but drinks on the weekends, or a youth who may be attending school and getting decent grades but
shoplifts an item from a store. The youth in these circumstances may be using a technique of neutralization
that allows them to justify the behavior. In essence, the youth learn how to avoid feeling bad about their
criminality.
Sykes and Matza identified five techniques of neutralization that delinquents most frequently use to allow
themselves to drift between conventional and nonconventional roles: denial of responsibility, denial of injury,
denial of victim, condemnation of condemners, and appealing to higher loyalties (see Table 3.2).
Table 3.2: Techniques of neutralization
Technique Example
Denial of responsibility: Criminal behavior is
beyond the control of or not the person’s fault.
A youth who blames others for the crime and
minimizes his or her role in the crime.
Denial of injury: Denying anyone was injured or
that the crime was wrong.
A youth who argues that drinking alcohol or using
marijuana should be legal because everyone else is
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 20 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03…ontent&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
doing it.
Denial of victims: Denial that a victim exists or
claiming that the victim may have contributed to
the crime.
A youth who argues the victim’s dress or demeanor
justified the crime.
Condemnation of condemners: Blaming those who
hold the youth accountable.
A youth who argues that judges, police, or others
are out to get him or her or are corrupt and as a
result are in no position to judge the youth’s
misdeeds.
Appeal to higher loyalties: Claims that some
outside force or cause is more important than the
law.
A gang member may argue that adhering to the
street code of the gang is more important because
they represent family. The youth may talk about
retaliation against rival gang members as a means
of “protecting the neighborhood” or express respect
for those who have died as a result of gang
violence. The youth’s criminal behavior in this
sense has a higher cause.
These techniques of neutralization might be then reinforced by friends or loved ones. For example, if a youth
is condemning the condemners, friends or even peers with a similar experience might agree with such
condemnation, thus reinforcing the neutralization that the youth should feel guilty at all.
The learning theories have led to a number of policies in the field. For example, if we believe that criminal
behavior is learned from intimate others, a clear policy implication is to disrupt antisocial peer networks.
Interestingly, disrupting peer networks has proven to be a difficult task for the system. It is not uncommon,
for example, for a probation officer or judge to tell the youth to refrain from associating with known
criminals. However, for some youth whose family members and friends are involved in criminal acts,
disassociating from criminals is often not a viable option. Disrupting networks not only requires removal of
antisocial friends but also the development of prosocial friendships. Some programs such as Big Brothers Big
Sisters or other peer mentoring programs may hold promise.
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 21 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03…ontent&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
3.7 Social Bonding Theory: Absence of Controls
Travis Hirschi (1969) developed contemporary social bonding theory (also referred to as social control
theory) in the 1960s. Hirschi argued that everyone is capable of committing crime. Unlike the previous
theories we discussed that assumed something or someone influences the likelihood of crime, social bonding
theory argues that everyone is born with the propensity to commit crime but that their bonds to conventional
society (e.g., people, organizations, institutions) keep them law abiding. In other words, the social bonds we
form in our environment are strong enough to prevent us from acting on our desire for deviance.
Early bonding theories argue that individuals engage in crime when controls on their behavior break down.
Those controls could be outside pressures or pulls—that is, individuals could be pulled into criminal activity
through peer pressure or poverty, for example. They could also be influenced by internal factors that push
someone into delinquency—that is, the individual’s own hostility, aggression, or perception of a situation
might push him or her into delinquent behavior. Some people who experience these factors, however, do not
succumb to delinquency. John Boman and colleagues (2012) found that youth who have positive relations
with others and a positive self-image, for example, are more inclined to resist external pulls, such as negative
peer pressure. Such youth might also be more apt not to be insecure or to judge situations too hastily. The
question is why does this occur? How do these positive relationships work to reduce delinquency? This is
where Hirschi’s updated version of social bonding theory comes in. He identified four types of bonds that
people normally have to society or others that often inhibit their criminal behavior (Hirschi, 1969). Those
bonds include attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief.
Attachment typically refers to bonds that youth have with others, which can include family members, peers,
teachers, or mentors. Being attached to other people typically means youth are sensitive to others’ feelings
and consider those people, such as when deciding whether to commit crime. Consider a youth who may want
to drink with friends but is concerned about what Grandma might think. That concern for someone else’s
feelings or opinion may influence the youth’s decision to avoid delinquency.
Commitment is similar in terms of goals or interests; however, it typically involves a prosocial value system.
A youth who is committed to going to college, getting a good job, and having a conventional lifestyle is
likely dedicated to conventional behaviors.
The third bond, involvement, typically includes participation in conventional activities such as sports, clubs,
or work. Youth who are busy are less likely to commit crime than those who spend a lot of unstructured time
with delinquent friends.
Finally, Hirschi’s last bond, belief, is similar to what we discussed in the section on learning theories. A belief
is really a moral belief or attitude supportive of a prosocial lifestyle. Those who believe that criminal
behavior is wrong or that crime hurts people or society are clearly less likely to engage in such conduct
(Hirschi, 1969).
Studies find that youth who have positive relationships with their families are less likely to be involved in
crime. Similarly, kids who report strong religious belief and who are involved in after-school activities and
sports are also less likely to be involved with drugs and alcohol or other forms of delinquency (Agnew &
Peterson, 1989; Cochran & Akers, 1989; Garnier & Stein, 2002). Studies show that involvement and belief
appear to be less important than attachments.
However, critics suggest that Hirschi ignores the concept of attachment to deviant peers. Hirschi argues that
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 22 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03…ontent&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
criminals lack bonds and friendships with others. Yet social learning theories suggest that delinquent peers
are a strong predictor or factor in explaining juvenile delinquency. Critics also argue that Hirschi fails to
discuss the importance of each bond. Finally, it is difficult to determine whether the weakened bond came
before or after the delinquency—is the weakened bond causing the delinquent behavior or is the criminal
behavior causing the weakened bond?
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 23 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03…ontent&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
3.8 The Role of Society: Labeling and Conflict Theories
The next group of theories moves away from implicating either environmental or individual factors and
instead focuses on the criminal justice system or, more broadly, the capitalist economic system, for delinquent
behavior. Implying that the criminal justice system could potentially increase delinquency is not without
controversy. However, these theories developed during the 1960s, which was a time of social unrest and
turmoil. People were open to the idea that the system may not always have the individual’s best interest in
mind. With the Vietnam War, race riots, and political assassinations and scandals, the public’s distrust of
government grew (Reiman, 2000). It was in this context that scrutiny also turned to the criminal justice
system and whether the system was equal and just.
In his book The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison, Jeffery Reiman (2000) argued that the system is
“anti-poor” and treats those without resources more harshly than the wealthy. Once in the system, delinquents
are thrust into a system of punishment that exacerbates their criminal behavior and often leads to a cycle that
is difficult to break. The two theories discussed in this section delve into these issues in detail.
Labeling Theory
Labeling theory gained in popularity in the 1960s. At its core, labeling theory argues that negative labels can
influence behavior. The process of how labels influence behavior can be a complicated one. One issue is the
assumptions generated from certain labels. For example, labeling an individual as “crazy” is often taken to
mean he or she suffers from a mental illness, is unstable, and is potentially dangerous. Once people are given
a negative label, they may be treated differently by others, they may begin to suffer from a negative self-
image, and if they accept the label, they may begin to act in accordance with that image (Adams, Robertson,
Gray-Ray, & Ray, 2003). But individuals may also reject the label. A youth may not accept the label, and
subsequently it may not have any impact on the youth’s self-image or behavior.
The person conferring or giving the label is also important. As we mentioned earlier in our discussion of
bonding theory, the attachment, frequency, duration, and severity of the labeling process matters. For
instance, if a parent or a close friend labels the youth in a negative way, that may have a greater impact than if
a distant acquaintance or a stranger applied the label. Similarly, if a youth is consistently labeled over time as
a troublemaker at home, in school, and in the community, he or she is more likely to believe that label.
The labeling effect then creates its own self-fulfilling
cycle. As children mature and continue to receive these
labels, they are more likely to internalize a deviant self-
concept. An internalized negative self-concept increases
the likelihood that an individual will seek out similar
others (i.e., other deviant peers). Once a youth joins a
deviant group, that subculture reinforces the delinquency
and rejects the conventional values of respect for
education and work. After an extended period of time,
depending on the severity of the label, the youth may find
it difficult to participate in a conventional lifestyle. For
example, if a youth is arrested and sentenced to a juvenile
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 24 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03…ontent&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
Youth who receive negative labels will more
likely develop a deviant self-concept and seek
out others like themselves. Certain groups or
segments of society may be more likely to
receive negative labels.
iStockphoto/Thinkstockinstitution, he or she may find it difficult to assimilate
back into a traditional school setting. Another example is
seen among parolees who are given labels such as “ex-
con,” which can have implications for employment
opportunities and social relationships (Adams et al.,
2003).
Another aspect of labeling theory, and one that is
particularly relevant to crime, is the idea that certain groups or segments of society may be more likely to
receive negative labels. In particular, labeling theory advocates claim that people who have less power, both
socially and economically, are more likely to experience negative labeling. In support of this claim, labeling
theorists point to the evidence of racial profiling and the overrepresentation of minorities in the criminal
justice system. Moreover, they argue that laws are defined by those in power and can have devastating
implications for communities with less cohesion and economic resources. For example, theorists argue that in
the 1980s the severity of the criminal justice system’s response to crack cocaine, a cheap form of cocaine
accessible to the urban poor, far exceeded the response to powdered cocaine, which was more expensive and
more apt to be abused in higher socioeconomic status circles. The disparity in sanctions had a negative
impact in many already distressed, impoverished urban areas (Hashimoto, 2011).
Much research has been done to validate labeling theory. Research supports the core belief that negative
labels can impact an individual’s self-image and subsequent deviant behavior (Kaplan & Johnson, 1991).
Youth who receive negative labels and reject conventional paths (e.g., school, legitimate employment) find
themselves caught up in a cycle of disadvantage and crime. However, other studies suggest that the theory
fails to explain why some youth engage in delinquency in the absence of labeling. And why, for some youth,
the negative labeling appears to come after the youth engaged in crime, not before (Tittle, 1975). The theory’s
assertion that certain segments of society are more likely to receive negative labeling is more difficult to
prove. Although evidence of discrimination in the system exists, the assertion that the system is intentionally
biased is difficult to disentangle.
Conflict Theory
Given recent economic conditions, conflict between the upper class and the lower class is worse today than it
has been in many decades. The inequity and economic rivalry that exists in capitalist society is the subject of
conflict theory. Conflict theory, originating from the work of Karl Marx, argues that unequal access to
wealth creates conditions that influence criminal behavior. In the 19th century, Marx claimed there was
inequity between the working class, called the proletariat, and the upper class or business owners, the
bourgeoisie. In particular, he argued that the proletariat was not given sufficient access to the profits gained
by the bourgeoisie (Lynch & Groves, 1989).
Capitalism, according to Marx, is to blame for these relationships. Capitalism’s focus on profit inevitably
leads to a lack of concern for human welfare. The human is seen simply as a worker who is easily expendable
in the name of profits. Marx was not a criminologist at his core, but his writings were clearly relevant to
criminology. In particular, his concern for the social welfare of workers has implications for the social
conditions created by these economic inequities, and the criminal behavior that might emerge from these
conditions.
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 25 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03…ontent&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
Conflict theory as an explanation of crime became popular in the 1960s. At that time, inequality in the
criminal justice system led many people to question not only whether the criminal justice system was fair but
also whether the methods for studying crime were giving an accurate picture of crime. As we discussed in
Chapter 1, the UCR is a measure of arrest rates but can also be seen simply as a measure of police
enforcement. In other words, it is a measure of how much priority police departments decide to apply when
enforcing certain laws (e.g., drug laws) and in what areas (e.g., lower-income areas). It is also argued that
crime may be more likely to occur in disadvantaged areas because the economic system has marginalized
large segments of society.
The concept of marginalization is a key part of the conflict theory explanation of crime. Marginalization is
the process whereby businesses increase their profits by reducing the workforce. They accomplish this by
replacing workers with more efficient means of production (e.g., computers, cheaper labor overseas), by
paying people less to do the same work, or by requiring employees to be more efficient. The more efficient
businesses become, the larger the marginalized class may become. These marginalized (unemployed or
underemployed) workers then are forced to live in areas that inevitably are more conducive to crime due to
their lack of economic means and opportunity. The people who live in these areas are “controlled” through
high rates of incarceration and police enforcement (Sims, 1997).
Critics of this perspective argue that conflict theorists have little data to prove their claims; in reality, most of
the crimes that occur (e.g., theft, drug trafficking) are not for economic survival. Others argue that capitalist
societies put regulations in place to reduce criminal behavior. For example, labor laws and regulatory policies
(e.g., those promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency or the Securities and Exchange
Commission) exist to protect workers from abuse. Finally, critics argue that conflict theorists ignore the
reality of violent crime; violence often is not directed toward business owners but rather at others in the same
environment (Klockars, 1980).
Numerous theories of crime help us to understand criminal behavior among juveniles. See Table 3.3 for a
summary. It is likely that all of these theories are relevant for some people, some of the time. Understanding
how and to what degree these theories are relevant requires recognition that each person is different and
brings to the table various risk and protective factors.
Table 3.3: Summary of theories
Theory of crime Main theorists Central thesis
Classical Beccaria &
Bentham
Crime occurs when the benefits outweigh the costs. Free will
is important to this theory.
Neoclassical/rational
choice
Stafford & Ward;
Cornish & Clarke
Building on Beccaria and the classical theory, crime is seen
as a choice influenced by costs and benefits and is thereby
rational.
Routine activities Cohen & Felson;
Clarke
Crime occurs when a motivated offender, suitable target, and
lack of capable guardianship come together. Changes to these
factors influence the crime rate. Situational crime prevention
developed from the theory.
Early biological Lombroso; Crime is caused or determined by physical characteristics or
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 26 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03…ontent&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
Sheldon abnormalities.
Modern biosocial Mednick; Ellis;
Walsh
Crime is a complex phenomenon best understood by
examining the interaction between biological and
sociological theories.
Trait/personality Eysenck; Caspi;
Moffitt
Crime is caused directly or indirectly by psychological traits.
Social
disorganization
Shaw & McKay;
Sampson; Wilson;
Groves
Disorganized communities create crime due to the
breakdown of social controls. Lack of collective efficacy
allows crime to flourish.
Anomie/institutional
anomie
Merton; Messner
& Rosenfeld
Gap between American Dream of success and opportunity to
obtain this goal creates structural strain. Norms and social
institutions weaken, creating anomie.
General strain Agnew When individuals cannot obtain success, they experience
pressure. Strain may be linked to goal blockage and
presentation of negative stimuli.
Cultural deviance Cohen Crime results when youth reject middle-class status in favor
of a set of norms that are supportive of criminal behavior.
Differential
association/social
learning
Sutherland; Akers Criminals learn the techniques of crime from intimate others
(e.g., peers), and once reinforced or rewarded for crime, they
are more likely to repeat the behavior.
Neutralization Sykes & Matza Criminals adopt neutralizations or rationalizations to drift
between criminal and noncriminal roles.
Social
control/bonding
Hirschi Key factor is the lack of control or bonds. Attachment,
commitment, involvement, and belief are particularly
important.
Labeling Lemert; Becker Labels influence criminal identity. The process of labeling
and the extent of that process influences whether the label is
adopted.
Conflict Bonger; Quinney;
Currie; Colvin
Inequality and power and material well-being create
conditions that lead to crime. Capitalism is particularly
criminogenic due to the degree of inequality it creates.
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 27 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03…ontent&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
Summary of Learning Objectives
Define criminology.
Criminology is the scientific study of criminal behavior.
Explain the classical and neoclassical theories of crime.
Classical and neoclassical theories assume that criminals are rational actors who weigh the costs and
benefits of criminal behavior before they act.
Summarize early biological and psychological theories of crime.
Early biological and psychological theories assumed that an individual’s physical traits or internal
drives could explain criminal behavior.
Analyze modern biological and psychological theories of crime.
Modern biosocial theorists argue that criminal behavior is influenced by a host of factors including
genetics, environmental contaminants, and hormones.
Personality theorists argue that personality influences how people respond to their environment and,
subsequently, their deviant behavior.
Describe sociological theories for understanding crime.
Sociological theories point to environmental correlates of crime, such as disorganized communities
with high rates of poverty, mistrust, and a lack of prosocial opportunities.
Evaluate how crime is understood according to learning theory perspectives.
Learning theorists argue that criminal behavior is learned much like any other behavior. Criminal
behavior that is learned in intimate groups and rewarded is more likely to be repeated.
Explain how social bonding theory helps us to understand crime.
Social bonding theory argues that everyone is born with the propensity to commit crime; however,
social bonds or ties to society stop people from acting on their desire for deviance.
Evaluate the role society plays in criminal behavior.
Labeling theory asserts that the label creates the expectation of criminal behaviors. Those who
accept the negative label are more likely to be involved in delinquency.
Conflict theorists argue that the capitalist system creates an unequal economic situation that
marginalizes large segments of society. That marginalization leads to criminal behavior.
Critical Thinking Questions
1. If you were caught by the police for drug use, what sanction would be needed to deter you from
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 28 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03…ontent&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
future criminal behavior?
2. Is there a transitional neighborhood in your community? What features of that neighborhood do you
think breed criminal behavior?
3. Who are the important people in your life? Can you see how those people have shaped your behavior
or your value system?
4. Should we be concerned that even the modern biological and psychological approaches will be used
to justify segregating or incarcerating those with abnormal traits?
Key Terms
Click on each key term to see the definition.
adoption studies
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
Research studies in which children adopted into different households are compared with each other or
biological parents in order to better understand biological and environmental influence.
American Dream
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
The capitalist dream that holds financial success in high esteem.
anomie theory
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 29 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03…ontent&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
A theory asserting that the breakdown of norms and values in communities leads to criminal behavior.
biosocial trait theory
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
A theory asserting that understanding criminal behavior rests with how biology and the environment interact.
bourgeoisie
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
The term used by Karl Marx for upper classes and owners of businesses.
Chicago Area Project (CAP)
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 30 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03…ontent&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
A program designed to assist at-risk juveniles through strengthening neighborhoods.
conflict theory
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
A theory asserting that unequal access to wealth creates conditions that influence criminal behavior.
collective efficacy
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
A community’s ability to exert control over its residents through informal (trust and respect among neighbors)
and formal (neighborhood watch groups, curfew enforcement by police) means.
criminology
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 31 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03…ontent&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
The scientific study of criminal behavior.
cultural deviance theory
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
A theory asserting that when communities lack legitimate means to obtain wealth, they will develop a set of
norms and rules for behavior that includes deviant means to obtain wealth.
determinism
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
Blaming the behavior of individuals on factors outside of their control.
deterrence theory
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 32 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03…ontent&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
A theory asserting that people decide to commit crime when the benefits outweigh its potential costs.
differential association theory
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
A theory asserting that people learn to be criminal through their interactions with others.
drift
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
In neutralization theory, a delinquent’s transition back and forth between conventional and nonconventional
roles.
free will
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 33 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03…ontent&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
The ability to choose the way in which to act.
general strain theory
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
A theory asserting that when individuals experience certain strains, or stresses, they are more likely to engage
in criminal behavior.
labeling theory
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
A theory asserting that negative labels can influence behavior.
marginal deterrence
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 34 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03…ontent&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
The concept that it is more effective to punish serious crimes with severe punishment.
marginalization
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
In conflict theory, a business process that puts pressure on the workforce through threats of replacement,
reduction in wages, or continual demands for efficiency.
neutralization theory
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
A theory asserting that people minimize criminal behavior to resolve feelings of guilt and responsibility.
personality theory
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 35 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03…ontent&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
A theory asserting that individual traits such as psychopathy influence criminal behavior.
proletariat
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
The term used by Karl Marx for the working class.
rational choice theory
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
A theory asserting that people carefully consider factors such as their skill level and target suitability before
choosing to commit a crime.
reinforcement
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 36 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03…ontent&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
In learning theory, a reward for behavior.
residential mobility
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
Movement in and out of the city.
routine activities theory
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
A theory asserting that the choice to commit crime is influenced by offender motivation, target suitability, and
a lack of capable guardianship.
social bonding theory
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 37 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03…ontent&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
A theory asserting that social bonds or ties to society stop people from acting on their desire for deviance.
social disorganization theory
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
A theory asserting that the cause of crime can be found in the environmental conditions within impoverished
areas.
somotyping
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
Also known as bodytyping, Sheldon’s theory that certain body types are more prone to criminal behavior.
twin studies
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
2/19/21, 10(42 AMPrint
Page 38 of 38https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch03…ontent&clientToken=7c521a3a-f3dc-0b14-c129-56d4f13c123c&np=cover
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
Research studies that examine whether identical twins are more likely to share similar behaviors due to their
identical genetic makeup.
zone of transition
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/se
ctions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1
/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.1
8.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
In social disorganization theory, an inner-city zone characterized by large numbers of foreign-born residents.
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#